Central government budget for 2019

Key points of the debate

The debate centred on the 2019 central government budget and the success of the Government's economic and employment policy. The government parties emphasised economic growth, achieving employment targets, and curbing debt accumulation. The opposition, for its part, criticised the proposal for increasing inequality, cutting funding for education and low-income earners, and being inadequate in terms of climate action and investments in the future.

• –Have the Government's actions increased inequality and worsened the position of low-income earners?
• –Are the investments in education, research, and combating climate change sufficient?
• –Should new borrowing have been avoided during an economic upswing, or should more have been invested in the future?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The National Coalition Party considered that economic and employment policy had succeeded and employment had improved, which strengthens the financial base of the welfare state.

  ”Hallituksen talouspolitiikka ja työllisyyspolitiikka toimivat. Näytöt ovat nyt esillä.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party considered the budget responsible and emphasised that economic growth and achieving employment targets create a sustainable foundation for the future across the entire country.

  ”Nyt asettamamme kunnianhimoiset talouspoliittiset tavoitteet ovat maalissa.”

• Blue ReformIn favour

  Blue Reform defended the Government's achievements in employment and considered that the budget contained important targeted measures to help low-income earners.

  ”Kun kolme vuotta sitten hallitustyö aloitettiin, oppositiossa sanottiin, että on mahdotonta saavuttaa näitä työllisyystavoitteita, vaan on saavutettu.”

• Finns PartyAgainst

  The Finns Party criticised continuous debt accumulation in the middle of an economic upswing and called for cutting expenditure on immigration and EU membership fees.

  ”Kansallinen etu vaatii vastuullista taloudenpitoa. Valtio ei voi jatkuvasti jakaa sellaista, mitä ei ole.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The Social Democrats considered the budget short-sighted and criticised the Government's cuts to education, research, and low-income earners, as well as the weakening of municipal finances.

  ”Tämän hallituksen talouspolitiikan perinnöksi jäävät leikkaukset pienituloisilta, koulutukselta, tieteeltä ja tutkimukselta.”

• GreensAgainst

  The Greens criticised the government term and the budget as a wasted opportunity, as cuts to education were not reversed and insufficient investments were made in combating climate change.

  ”Tämä hallitus on ollut hukattujen mahdollisuuksien hallitus.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The Left Alliance considered that the Government had increased inequality by cutting from the most vulnerable and favouring high earners with tax cuts.

  ”Mutta niin hyvää taloudellista tilannetta ei ilmeisesti olekaan, että hallitus olisi valmis huolehtimaan sosiaalisesta oikeudenmukaisuudesta.”

• Swedish People's PartyAgainst

  The Swedish People's Party welcomed improved employment, but criticised the Government's severe cuts to education and the centralisation of the hospital network.

  ”RKP haluaa rakentaa menestyvän Suomen. Parhaiten se taataan koulun ja koulutuksen avulla.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The Christian Democrats considered the budget inadequate to resolve the crisis in elder care and support families with children, and pointed out the risks of an economic downturn.

  ”Ensi vuoden budjettia laatiessaan hallitus unohti ikäihmiset ja vanhustenhoidon.”

• Citizens' PartyAgainst

  The Citizens' Party criticised Parliament's reluctance to discuss eurozone membership and its economic impacts.

  ”Puhun euroelefantista, asiasta, josta eduskunnassa ei haluta keskustella.”

This digest was generated by AI from 1110 speeches 13 Sep 2026. Group positions are read from the speeches, not from votes; quotations were checked verbatim against the record. The longest speeches were shortened in the digest's source material.