Comment Expresses the views of the writer.
(Trander Discussion): This may sound overly student councilor-ish or top-notch, but with the Trøndelag Labor Party gaining national attention, it's important that coverage of the district party is accurate.
I think not when the national news media reported it This weekend is the annual meeting of the district party.
MATTER IN QUESTION: Mandates for Fall Candidate for General Election. After Trøndelag became a county and consequently a district team for the APS region, the county party no longer had laws for nomination that agreed with the constituencies for the Storting. Therefore, he had to undertake the task of determining the rules for the distribution of warrants for nomination meetings in each of North and South Trendalach.
Had Trøndelag Ap not merged and had two more district teams, Trondheim Ap would have a clear majority in the southern district today, as the local team has grown this way as a result of the rise of Nitaro's Social Democratic Forum. But with the laws adopted at the weekend annual meeting in Trøndelag Ap, Trondheim Ap has a bigger one. Minority.
From this perspective, one can safely interpret the development as either Trondheim gaining less influence than before or Trondkiske's eventual path becoming longer as a result of the decision for a parliamentary nomination.
But I honestly think that's bad journalism. Because, when the matter was dealt with this weekend, Trondheim retaining a majority of representatives was never on the table.
For example, wrote Aftenposten In his case That «After the annual meeting, Trond Giske can only be elected with the support of Trondheim Ap. If he wants to be a candidate for the Storting again, he must also get support from the other municipal teams in Sør-Trøndelag”.
Written by NRK on its side – Under the heading of Trøndelag Ap's new by-laws, Giske sends the vote count, “so that Trondheim Ap has 57 out of 133 representatives in the nomination meeting in Sør-Trøndelag constituency. This is ten less than before”.
But even if this is factually correct, in my view it gives a false impression of what actually happened at the Annual Meeting. Because allowing Trondheim to get a clear majority in this autumn's nomination meeting for the Sør-Trøndelag constituency was not a realistic option.
What was really debated was whether there should be a lot of geographic equation (which would have given 47 of the 133 mandates), or some geographic equation (which was accepted, giving Trondheim 57 mandates).
Despite great disagreement on mandates and editorial boards, the unanimous Annual Meeting came down on the latter option.
This is The This is interesting from a journalistic point of view: the Annual Meeting adopted the distribution of mandates that it theoretically provides, in a choice between two alternatives that were actually available and discussed. The biggest In favor of Trond Giske, if he decides to stand as a candidate.
“The Municipal Party loses its majority, but retains more representatives than originally thought,” NRK admitted. But I still don't think it gives a particularly accurate picture of the decision that was made, especially when the decision was portrayed on various newspaper front pages as a defeat for Trondheim Ap or Trond Giske.
They came out better than many imagined before the weekend started. That is the message.
Read on
Breaking the law? This is how you save a cabinet position
Read on
But what if he says what he says?
“Music geek. Coffee lover. Devoted food scholar. Web buff. Passionate internet guru.”
