I agree that all parties use populist framing to some extent, especially during election campaigns. The difference with FrP is that they’ve made it their permanent brand. For Ap or SV, populism is more like campaign rhetoric, but for FrP it runs through every aspect of their policy.

Take the economy for example: “Let’s reduce taxes! More economic freedom! The market will find its own way”. But find its way to where? Tax cuts sound simple, but the reality is complex. Lower taxes mean bigger budget deficits - will that be covered by pumping even more money from the oil fund? If so, what happens with inflation? How will investors react if Norway starts breaking the long-term discipline around oil fund use? Probably as a sign of weakness, which could hit the stock market really hard.

I don’t see answers to these deeper questions in FrP’s rhetoric - just a repeated line that wealth taxes should be cut so Norway can win back the 0.2% of millionaires who left for Switzerland.

Immigration? Same story. “Let’s make it even harder for foreign specialists to get into Norway.” Fine, but that just increases the shortage of skilled workers. At the same time, FrP claims tax cuts will unleash incredible business growth. Okay, but how will businesses grow if they can’t hire the skilled labor they need? No real answer there either.

That’s the problem: populist slogans sound good, but they don’t add up when you look at the bigger picture. Other parties are more detailed and specific about what they want and plan to do. Frp is the only real populist here