Mitä laki ei mahdollista: "Määritelmien on mahdollistettava tarjoajille yhtäläiset mahdollisuudet osallistua tarjouskilpailuun, eivätkä ne saa perusteettomasti rajoittaa kilpailua julkisissa hankinnoissa." Tarvitaan toimija, joka ravistelee julkisen sektorin käytäntöjä. www.finlex.fi/fi/lainsaada...

Vastasin Anun kommenttiin. Siinä on kyse verotuksesta.

Juuri hyväksytyn veropoliittisen ohjelman mukaan kokonaisveroastetta tulee nostaa. Veronkorotukset kohdistuvat rikkaisiin ja yrityksiin: "VIHREIDEN esittämä maanpuolustusvero olisi määräaikainen ja se kohdennettaisiin suurille yhteisöille ja varakkaimmille henkilöille."

www.hs.fi/politiikka/a...

What matters more is what those who voted for him believe.

Finland is a civil law country. This means that problems like the common law ability of SCOTUS to create law don’t apply to Finland.

The cultural norms are backed by our criminal code. www.finlex.fi/api/media/st...

"We will get Brexit done in January and unleash the potential of our whole country."

We have a very different reading of his promises made to, for example, the people in the red wall. assets-global.website-files.com/5da42e2cae7e...

"Political parties that meet the threshold (5% of the party vote or one electorate seat) receive seats in the House in proportion to the share of the party vote they receive." 2/2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Ne...

A quick browse on Wikipedia shows multiple issues with the NZ electoral system. For example, the threshold for getting new parties in is quite high. In Finland, we use open rather than closed party lists (and no MMP to begin with). 1/2

In all the countries without proportional voting like the UK, changing the voting system needs to be a top priority for voters. In the UK this is feasible. In the US getting such a constitutional amendment passed is practically impossible. bsky.app/profile/pett...

In our constitution, the history shows up these days, for example, like this (section 2): "In all public activity, the law shall be strictly observed." bsky.app/profile/pett...

We definitely don't. There's been plenty of discussion on, for example, how to protect and improve the rule of law in the last couple of years. yle.fi/a/74-20066668

Our institutional setup comes originally from the period under the Russian empire with autonomy. Public officials are very independent because the country wanted to have protections from the Tsar.

This is acutely a first-past-the-post country problem. It's harder to break the rules when you have to convince coalition partners to play along.

The German constitution (for obvious reasons) makes it impossible to change the central principles: "However, no basic principles of the constitution may be altered using this procedure. Article 79 (3) prohibits amendments of the Basic Law affecting" www.bmi.bund.de/EN/topics/co...

www.finlex.fi/api/media/st...

The Finnish constitution can be changed either immediately with 5/6 majority or 2/3 from two parliaments. Basically to totally wreck our freedoms a party needs to have tabled an amendment before an election and people would need to explicitly vote for the party again. bsky.app/profile/pett...

I don’t see how this would be possible in Finland. Our constitutional setup splits power between the prime minister and the president. Neither of the positions is that powerful to begin with. You need more than 50% of the parliamentary seats in our proportional voting system to do anything quickly.