Is Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle Using Taxpayer Money to Mislead?

In Finland, there is a taxpayer-funded media company – Yleisradio often shortened as Yle – whose purpose is to produce truthful reporting. Unfortunately, the company does not always seem to grasp this fact; instead, its programming often clearly reflects the journalists’ own – green-leftist – political views.

At worst, this manifests itself in perspectives favoring the political left and even in what appears to be the deliberate misleading of the audience. A good example of this was provided by Yle’s recent article titled “Report: Finland has succeeded well in integrating immigrants, only Sweden ahead.”

In reality, according to the article itself, the report in question did not actually address immigrant integration, but rather focused mainly on financial and other support directed at them, as well as, for example, opportunities for newcomers to participate in society. In other words, Finland has not necessarily succeeded in integrating immigrants; instead, it has provided the second most services. This assessment did not include any evaluation of the actual outcome – that is, the success of integration.

Therefore – my dear readers – each of you may consider for yourselves whether the generous funding of Yleisradio with Finnish taxpayers’ money is truly justified. Or is it rather a case of misuse of people’s money?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
An Economist’s Fact-Based Response to Polarizing Tax Claims
Acts of Vandalism Against a Political Party
Orwellian Big Brother monitors journalists of Finland's Public Broadcasting Company Yle

A Sudanese Man Killed His Wife – So What?

A Sudanese man killed his wife in Tampere, Finland. The incident occurred when the man struck the woman in the neck with a knife that had a blade approximately 20 centimeters long while she was lying in bed.

After the crime, the man went to the police to report what had happened, which accelerated both the investigation and the judicial process. It was determined that the man was partially criminally responsible at the time of the murder, and he was sentenced to seven years and six months in prison. In addition, he was ordered to pay €3,750 in compensation to the victim’s relatives for their loss and €1,000 for funeral expenses.

* * *

The convicted individual was one of those whom the Finnish green-left has touted as a savior of Finnish society as the native population ages. However, he is not the only person with such a background who has committed serious crimes.

According to a Wikipedia article referencing official statistics, individuals with African backgrounds in Finland have been reported to commit crimes against life and health at 4.5 times the rate of individuals with Finnish backgrounds. Among these, persons from the same country as the perpetrator mentioned above are statistically overrepresented in such crimes at 10.1 times the rate compared to the native Finnish population. Additionally, individuals of Sudanese origin have been found to be overrepresented in assault offenses, with a 10.9-fold rate compared to those of Finnish background.

Furthermore, violent crime is not the only area where statistical overrepresentation has been observed. For example, robbery offenses committed by individuals of Sudanese origin have been reported at a rate 25.7 times higher per capita than among the native Finnish population.

* * *

It is important to note that these figures are statistical facts but are influenced by multiple social, economic, and integration-related factors. Therefore, they cannot be used to directly categorize different human groups. However, these caveats do not alter the reality that Sudanese immigrants commit serious crimes in Finnish society at a significantly high rate.

One might expect this to spark interest within Finland’s political green-left. However, based on observations so far, it is likely futile to anticipate such a shift, as the belief in the woke culture is so deeply ingrained in their worldview that even statistical data cannot change it. Consequently, they continue to advocate for the continuation and even expansion of humanitarian immigration, justifying it with factors such as Finland’s low birth rate, human rights, and cultural enrichment (Left Alliance,  Greens).

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed? 
Warnings from Jussi Halla-aho and Igor Girkin About Europe's Near Future
Can Peace Emerge from Horrific War Crimes?

Can Europe Learn from Finland´s and Spain’s Contrasting Immigration Policies?

The immigration issue in Finland became a normal political process when the government programme of Petteri Orpo's (NCP) cabinet was agreed upon — or at the latest, when those decisions started being implemented into legislation.

In Spain, by contrast, power is held by a socialist government that pays no attention to the problems of immigration. Instead, it is planning to grant residence and work permits to a large number of migrants who have entered the country illegally. In other words, the government led by Pedro Sánchez has decided to ignore the elephant in the room.

Naturally, this failure to address the problems has led to a backlash. A serious sign of this was seen in the municipality of Torre-Pacheco, where a 68-year-old man was attacked by three North African men.

This prompted frustrated Spaniards to take matters into their own hands and engage in outright illegal actions — namely, physically attacking immigrants. Reportedly, no one has died in these incidents, but five people have been injured.

It remains to be seen what the consequences of this unrest will be, as those who have taken justice into their own hands — described as far-right individuals — are to be arrested and prosecuted. All this is taking place in a municipality where as much as one third of the population has an immigrant background.

* * *

The developments I described above should prompt reflection all across Europe. In particular, it would be worthwhile to compare the immigration policies of Spain and Finland. And to examine what they have led to — and what they are likely to lead to in the coming years.

For my part, I believe — in the spirit of former president Paasikivi — that the recognition of facts is the beginning of wisdom. But how on earth can this simple truth be understood by Sánchez's government? Or by the Finnish green-left?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Left Wants to Grill a Swedish Minister Over His Son’s Past – What’s Really Behind It? 
EU Citizens Don’t Want More Migrants – But How Can the Flow of Asylum Seekers Be Slowed?
EU Commission Should Take Migration and Related Crime Seriously

Finland Decides to Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty — But What Business Is It of Guterres?

Parliament decided today by a clear majority that Finland will withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty, allowing its Defence Forces to once again utilize anti-personnel mines in their operations. The vote result was 157 in favor and 18 against.

Thus ended the risky decision taken in 2011 by Finland’s Social Democratic President Tarja Halonen and the National Coalition Party’s Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen. At that time, the only parties voting against the treaty in Parliament were the Finns Party and a small number of Centre Party representatives.

Today, those who voted against the withdrawal agreement — effectively voting in favor of Putin — included ten members of the Left Alliance parliamentary group (1), seven members of the Greens (2), and one representative of the Swedish People's Party (3). These individuals are widely regarded in Finland as errand boys and girls for Putin.

All other members present supported the reintroduction of anti-personnel mines as a means of defense, to ensure that Russia remains on the eastern side of the approximately 1,300-kilometer border between the two countries. Many recognized the urgency of this need already in 2014, when Putin’s "little green men" occupied Crimea and parts of Eastern Ukraine. For those slower to grasp the situation, the reality became clear in 2022, when the Russian army invaded Ukraine.

* * *

In this context, I cannot help but express my astonishment at UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who took it upon himself to interfere in Finnish decision-making by strongly advocating for Finland to remain in the treaty. The reasons for this are anyone’s guess, as it would seem quite strange if the head of the United Nations were somehow under the influence of the Russian dictator.

Of course, it’s also possible that Guterres was simply unaware of how Finland uses anti-personnel mines and feared they would pose a danger to civilians. However, this fear is unfounded, because — unlike in developing countries — Finnish mines are not scattered randomly in the terrain.

Instead, the Finnish army lays minefields only when there is a clearly identified threat, and even then, their locations are recorded both on paper and in electronic systems. This ensures that minefields can be dismantled immediately when no longer needed — and therefore do not pose a threat to civilian lives or health.

1. Timo Furuholm, Veronika Honkasalo. Mai Kivelä, Anna Kontula, Minja Koskela, Pia Lohikoski, Laura Meriluoto, Aino-Kaisa Pekonen, Hanna Sarkkinen and Johannes Yrttiaho)
2. Fatim Diarra, Tiina Elo, Bella Forsgrén, Inka Hopsu, Saara Hyrkkö, Jenni Pitko and Oras Tynkkynen
   
3. Eva Biaudét

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
António Guterres, You Won’t Stop Russia – But Mines Might
Putin's Threat Bolsters European Border States' Defense Against Russia
Will Finland Withdraw from the Ottawa Treaty?

Iran Exposes the Finnish Green-Left as Intellectually Dishonest or Lacking Values

A young Finnish conservative politician, Binga Tupamäki (National Coalition Party), recently expressed her astonishment on social media, asking: “Why is the Finnish left defending an Islamist state that, in the name of jihad, is seeking to develop nuclear weapons?” It’s a valid question—so let us take a look at the values of the Finnish left.

According to the Left Alliance's party platform, the party's "core values are freedom, solidarity, and equality." The Social Democratic Party of Finland lists the same values, albeit in a slightly different order: "Our core values are freedom, equality, and solidarity."

Each reader can decide for themselves how well those words describe the actions of Iran’s Islamist government—or how those principles could possibly lead to the conclusion that such a regime is in any way worth defending by members or supporters of these parties.

And what about Finland’s value-liberal Greens? They don’t have a concise list quite like the Left Alliance, but their platform includes the following description: “We work to stop climate change and the sixth wave of extinction... we fight for an equal, safe, and just future. We defend nature and people.”

Nothing in that list seems even remotely compatible with the defense of Iran’s Islamist regime. On the contrary, based on these statements, one would expect the Greens to be pleased that someone—anyone—is actively trying to stop Iran’s mullahs from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Altogether, it appears that when comparing their stated values with their actual behavior, many Finnish green-leftists are not living up to their principles. In other words, they are either intellectually dishonest or, in practice, lack values. Perhaps even both.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Hezbollah Uses Human Shields While the Green-Left Looks Away
The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

Expert Statement Highlights Russian Hybrid Threat Over Migration Across the Mediterranean

The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE) has issued a warning about the threat of instrumentalised migration. According to the Centre, "large-scale instrumentalised migration could cause significant problems for Finland's societal peace, as well as public order and security, potentially impairing crisis decision-making and operational capabilities."

The Centre also noted that "it is possible that by exploiting disinformation arising from such a situation, solidarity towards Finland within Europe could be significantly diminished. Should such a hybrid campaign become highly effective, it may pave the way for some unexpected political and military arrangements."

The Centre drew attention to the fact that “unauthorised crossing of Finland’s eastern land border is considerably easier and safer than the hundreds of kilometres of sea travel across the Mediterranean. Therefore, Finland may face even greater pressure than what has traditionally been seen at the Mediterranean. This vulnerability is of a permanent nature, and Russia can exploit this mechanism with minimal effort.”

A representative of the Hybrid CoE also pointed out the EU Commission's stance, which states that "to safeguard the security of the Union and the territorial integrity of its member states, it is essential that member states bordering Russia and Belarus can act decisively and firmly to effectively control the Union’s external borders. Consequently, member states may need to make exceptions to EU regulations if instrumentalised migration threatens the public order, internal security, or national security of the Union and its member states."

* * *

This expert statement was issued in connection with the plans to extend Finland's border security law concerning the eastern frontier. Originally passed as a one-year measure in the summer of 2024, the law sparked intense debate, particularly among the political green-left. As a result, six Social Democrats, one Swedish People's Party representative, and the entire parliamentary groups of the Greens and the Left Alliance voted against it. Despite the objections from MPs who, in effect, aligned themselves with Russia’s position, the law passed in Parliament with the necessary majority: 167 votes to 31.

This spring, the political left has once again voiced pro-Moscow criticism regarding the extension of the border law (one, two, three examples). That is why it is important that the expert statement referenced above not only addressed the actual threats but also clearly highlighted the European Commission’s position, which justifies deviation from EU regulations in cases of instrumentalised migration.

Indeed, it would be an utterly untenable situation if the EU or any of its member states were unable to defend themselves against hostile threats from the East simply because they clung to regulatory frameworks, regardless of the consequences. One would hope this point would be heard—and more importantly, understood—even by the political green-left, though that may be a vain hope.

In the coming weeks, we shall see what kind of spectacle unfolds in the Finnish Parliament and the media as the border security law is revisited. However, it already seems clear that this is nothing more than political theatre, as there are ultimately too few MPs willing to act as Putin’s advocates by opposing Finland’s security interests and reopening the country’s borders to hybrid operations. Still, it is helpful that they reveal themselves so openly.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Be Ready: Russia May Launch Another "Special Operation"
Human Rights Judge Pauliine Koskelo Questions Asylum Interpretation That Ignores the Threat of Hybrid Warfare
Defending National Security: Finland's Response to Hybrid Warfare

Why Does the Political Green-Left Lie, and Why Does It Resonate with the People?

Today we saw a textbook example of the rhetoric employed by the political green-left. This concerns the chair of the Green Party, Sofia Virta (Green), who commented on Prime Minister Petteri Orpo's (NCP) statement that the Finnish right wing government will not cut state spending beyond the previously decided nine billion euros.

Virta claimed that "this is purely an election speech" and suggested that the government would resume making spending cuts immediately after the county elections and municipal elections in April. She was supported in this by the chair of the Green Party's parliamentary group, Oras Tynkkynen, who speculated that "if the main government parties go into these elections without revealing everything about the policies they plan to pursue in the coming years, it is problematic for democracy."

Virta also made another odd comment. She claimed that Orpo's statements contradict earlier comments by Minister of Finance Riikka Purra (Finns Party) regarding budget cuts. This was based on a Green Party press release that alleged the Finance Minister had stated in December that further cuts would be needed in the spring budget negotiations.

In reality, however, Purra did not say this. She had earlier noted that additional savings could be made in the spring if necessary but recently added that "this political coalition does not appear to have the capability to identify significantly more savings."

The comments by the Greens and their leaders are an unfortunate example of a phenomenon that has become increasingly common in green-left rhetoric in recent years: outright lying to voters. 

The most striking example of this was seen a few years ago, when the then-chair of the Left Alliance's parliamentary group, Paavo Arhinmäki, told voters that the state never has to repay its debts and emphasized that Finland barely pays any interest on them. The truth, however, is that the Finnish government paid as much as 3 billion euros in interest alone in 2024, meaning that a third of the savings previously made by the state administration was spent solely on that.

However, there’s no need to wonder about the Greens' and the broader green-left's comments, as they have recently helped to boost their support. This is evident in the latest party approval poll, which indicates that the combined support for the governing coalition parties has dropped to 42.4%.

For this reason, rational people should focus less on the green-left’s rhetoric and more on their supporters. In other words, we must try to understand why they allow themselves to be swayed by deceptive rhetoric and, after enlightenment, address the problem one way or another.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The Green Movement of Finland is Lost
The stabbing of the 12-year-old led to political revelry among the left in Finland
Challenges of democracy: Reflections on political violence and rhetoric in Finnish politics

Finnish, Japanese, and Dutch Adults Lead in Literacy, Numeracy, and Problem-Solving Skills

The OECD has published a new Survey of Adult Skills, examining proficiency in literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving across different countries. According to the report, Finnish, Japanese, and Dutch adults outperformed their peers in other nations.

At the top of the rankings were Finns, who excelled in all three categories. However, in adaptive problem-solving, they shared the leading position with the Japanese.

On average, across OECD countries, 18% of adults lack even the most basic level of proficiency in any of the measured domains. In contrast, only 7% of Japanese adults fell into this category.

Interestingly, first-generation immigrants in Finland performed significantly worse than ethnic Finns, with the largest gap in reading proficiency among all the countries surveyed.

This finding may have implications for immigration policy, particularly in decisions regarding work-based immigrants or quota refugees. Unfortunately, the OECD report did not provide details about the immigrants’ countries of origin.

Nevertheless, this data should be obtained to inform policymakers, as questions surrounding immigration policy are highly relevant at present. Some green-left opposition politicians advocate for accepting immigrants from all countries without consideration of ethnic or religious backgrounds. Recently, they urged the government to reject measures that assess immigrants' potential performance in Finnish working life and society.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Immigration Policy Should Be Based on Evidence
10% of Foreign Students in Finland Failed to Meet Residence Requirements
Humanitarian immigration does not provide a solution to Finland's demographic dependency ratio

Immigration Policy Should Be Based on Evidence

Finland is one of those countries where the native population has, on average, just slightly more than one child per family. As a result, the number of ethnically Finnish people is set to decline rapidly over the coming decades.

This poses a problem for the demographic structure of society, as the number of working-age people decreases while the number of elderly individuals in need of care increases. This fact is often cited as a key reason for the need for immigration to Finland—a position supported by both the liberal right and the green-left political spectrum.

Only the national-conservative Finns Party has clearly disagreed, advocating for stricter controls on humanitarian immigration, particularly from developing countries, as well as on forms of labor-based immigration where wages are insufficient to support the newcomers, leaving taxpayers to cover part of the costs.

This discussion has been further influenced by the immigration minister of Sweden, a country that has pursued even more open immigration policies than Finland. According to the minister, "there is a dramatic difference between receiving 100,000 asylum seekers and 100,000 highly educated labor migrants."

This fact has often been overlooked by Finnish proponents of immigration. For this reason, I hope they will carefully examine Sweden’s experiences with its immigration policies, listen to the relevant Swedish government minister, and draw the correct conclusions from all of this. 

The fact is that even in immigration policy, Finland does not need polarization but rather an acknowledgment of the facts. And after that, decision-making based on evidence.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
10% of Foreign Students in Finland Failed to Meet Residence Requirements
Finland’s Minister of Finance Believes Not All Cultures Are Equally Good
Immigration Policy Must Take Artificial Intelligence and Robots into Account

Hezbollah Uses Human Shields While the Green-Left Looks Away

According to World At War, a source active on social media, the terrorist organization Hezbollah has asked civilians not to leave the area where Israel has announced it will attack - and that attach occurred today. This is nothing new or surprising, as another terrorist organization, Hamas, operating in Gaza, has similarly used civilians as human shields.

Additionally, Hezbollah’s leaders clearly intend to exploit the civilians who may die or be injured in a potential Israeli strike for their propaganda war, claiming it was a terrorist attack. At the same time, following Hamas’s example, they fail to mention that they are actively contributing to the high number of civilian casualties.

In other words, these terrorist organizations are committing war crimes by sacrificing their own citizens. Unfortunately, this strategy works as long as people in Western countries fail to understand the irresponsible sacrifice of their populations by these two terrorist organizations for the sake of propaganda victories.

The problem lies in the fact that the Western political green-left movement - for reasons I personally cannot comprehend - remains locked in a Cold War mindset (example and another), where people with a socialist worldview consistently supported the side backed by the Soviet Union in international conflicts. The Soviet Union may no longer exist, but the memory of its strong support for Muslims in their efforts to destroy Israel remains alive.

This persists despite the fact that the Islamic world represents almost everything the political green-left claims to support: equality between genders or religions, freedom of expression, or the avoidance of corporal punishments—none of which exist in the Islamic world, as is well known by everyone in the Western world.

It remains to be seen how the green-left will once again protest when Israelis defend their existence by attacking the terrorists based in Lebanon, despite the human shields they use. And how they will demand punishment for Israel over the casualties that would not have occurred without Hezbollah's active involvement.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
How Will Israel Benefit on the Explosions of Hezbollah's Communication Devices?
What Does the Failure of Hezbollah's Attack Tell Us?
The first casualty of war is the truth - but whose truth?

The Green Movement of Finland is Lost

As my esteemed reader knows, Finland currently has a right-wing government that came to power a little over a year ago. Its task is to address the economic distress created by the previous center-left government, which scattered taxpayers' money with abandon. While the results are still modest, decisions have been made, and over time they promise to balance the public budget and kickstart economic growth, which has stagnated for a decade and a half.

In this regard, the situation is interesting because the Finnish green-left has been unable to do anything but criticize the government's decisions, without offering any alternatives. The most intriguing case is that of the Green Party, which has over the years drifted to the far left.

Its chairwoman, Sofia Virta, has repeatedly stated that her practically sole goal is to bring down the government. In the same breath, she has addressed issues related to humanitarian immigration, such as street violence, claiming that "the Finns Party doesn’t want to solve these problems. Their support is based on them."

This is strange, because it is precisely the Finns Party that has wanted to limit humanitarian immigration to a level where newcomers can be integrated into Finnish society. They have also criticized the provision of unconditional – and thus demotivating – social benefits to spontaneous immigrants.

Additionally, Virta has claimed that "the prime minister probably doesn’t lose a second of sleep worrying about how to get health centers and public services to function." This is, of course, a blatant lie, as it was the previous government—of which the Greens were a part—that carried out a healthcare reform that led to the collapse of the system. The current government has been particularly focused on correcting the mistakes made earlier.

Each individual can draw their own conclusions about the reasons behind the Green Party chairwoman's rhetoric. Personally, I suspect it is a panicked, primal reaction to the fact that the Greens’ support, which at its peak had one in six Finns behind it, has now dropped to half of that.

Sofia Virta will have no political future if this trend doesn’t reverse during her tenure. And, of course, it’s impossible to imagine that happening with the methods she’s currently employing. This is because, in Finland, smearing political opponents has never been valued; instead, constructive proposals and presenting alternatives are appreciated.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?
Healthcare Services for Undocumented Immigrants are a Pull Factor for Harmful Immigration
Putin's useful idiots in Finland

The Finnish Government is Unanimous on Fixing the Country's Economy

The Finnish economy is in poor condition for many reasons. However, the situation is about to change, as the government formed by the political right has decided to address the issue.

This is despite the fact that the opposition, led by the left, has done everything in its power to sow discord among the government parties. One party has been accused of racism, and another of favoring the wealthy. And so on.

Nevertheless, the relations between the governing parties seem to be working, as evidenced by the fact that a budget meeting planned for two days only took one day. And there is no doubt that the outcome will have economic impacts on the lives of ordinary Finns.

The government's decisions were varied. First of all, changes were made to taxation so that low- and middle-income people will have more of their salary left for personal use than before. On the other hand, spending was directed toward essential expenses, and therefore, significant cuts were made to less essential items, such as development aid.

Despite these decisions, Finland's economy will not turn around overnight. However, over time, especially the structurally important budget changes, such as better support for business innovation, will take effect and lift Finland's economy out of its current decline.

It is also certain that the political green-left will not stop offering socialist solutions. And if they come to power in the 2027 elections and undo the continuity of the decisions now made, Finland will face an even more challenging future than the present.

That is why it is important for voters to understand this and refrain from disrupting the positive progress that is currently underway. Personally, I believe in that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Will Orpo's Government Restore Finland to Sustainable Economic Growth?
Finns are backing the government making difficult decisions
Change of immigration policy and development cooperation

The European Parliament elections were a celebration for the far-left in Finland

The result of yesterday's European Parliament elections in Finland certainly surprised everyone following politics. It also surprised me, so a few words about it.

The big winner of the elections was the far-left formed by the Left Alliance and the Greens, which seemed to get the largest share of votes in all elections during Finland's independence. As much as 28.6 percent of the voters gave their vote to them.

This means that the Finnish European Parliament group will henceforth provide even more support for centralization, the migration of people from developing countries, wokeness, and efforts like Euro-taxes. At the same time, the result also means that the Finnish far-left knew how to take advantage of the low voter turnout.

This, however, was not understood by the supporters of the Finns Party. They decided to stay at home, perhaps cursing the entire European Union in their minds or protesting minor issues in the Finnish government's policy, where the party participates.

And they fulfilled my warning from a few days ago that the green-left would get one more representative in the European Parliament if people supporting other political directions did not go to the polls. Thus, the voting behavior of Finnish national conservatives was, to put it nicely, foolish.

* * *

If this kind of thinking had prevailed in all EU countries, the people from Africa and the Middle East seeking to come to Europe for welfare reasons would have thanked and set off in even larger numbers. Similarly, the preservation of raw materials for the Finnish forest industry would have become a real threat, and only imagination would have been the limit to what could be achieved on the wokeness front.

The silver lining was that the national conservatives in other countries were not as foolish as the Finns, but instead achieved an electoral victory while the entire left lost support. Of course, this victory would have been greater if Finnish voters had decided to support the Finns Party candidates instead of the far-left.

With the EPP group, including the Finnish National Coalition Party, achieving an electoral victory at the Union level, we can breathe a sigh of relief and hope to see healthier politics in the EU over the next five years than in the past term. Additionally, we hope that the most idiotic plans of the previous European Parliament will not be implemented.

* * *

In addition to EU politics, the election results will also impact Finland's domestic politics. Within the government, the National Coalition Party's victory in the European elections and the Finns Party's crushing defeat will increase the influence of the Prime Minister's National Coalition Party and decrease the influence of the Finance Minister's Finns Party. Thus, the issues important to the National Coalition Party will progress better than the wishes of the Finns Party.

This will be particularly evident in Finnish immigration and asylum policies, where the lines of the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party differ. My guess is that it will be even more challenging to bring related government program policies to the Parliament and thus into law during the current parliamentary term.

The danger, therefore, is that Finnish politics will see a repeat of the phenomenon witnessed during Juha Sipilä's (Centre Party) government from 2015 to 2019. Its immigration policy program was sensible, but ultimately it was never implemented. And to top it all off, a tremendous number of people from developing countries rushed into the country without the government taking any measures to prevent it.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Mass immigration is the greatest concern for EU youth
During the Eurovision song spectacle, the incompetence of EU officials was revealed
The EU's 7.4 billion euro aid package is intellectual dishonesty