Central government budget for 2023

Key points of the debate

The debate on the 2023 central government budget was sharply contested between the Government and the opposition. The main confrontation arose over heavy government borrowing and the need for spending adjustments in a situation marked by Russia's war of aggression, the energy crisis and inflation. Broad consensus in the chamber prevailed only regarding appropriation increases for national defence, border security and security of supply.

• –Was substantial additional borrowing a necessary response to crises or irresponsible economic policy?
• –Should central government spending have been adjusted and prioritised more strongly?
• –Are the measures to compensate for the rise in electricity and living costs sufficient and properly targeted?

• Social DemocratsIn favour

  The Social Democrats stressed that the budget safeguards purchasing power and welfare services in a difficult crisis situation, and highlighted record employment levels and the importance of economic growth in reversing the debt trend.

  ”Ryhdymme käsittelemään ensi vuoden valtion tuloja ja menoja uuden kriisin varjossa.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party defended the budget as a necessary crisis-era budget that safeguards citizens' livelihoods, strengthens national defence, and supports agriculture and security of supply.

  ”Venäjän julma hyökkäys Ukrainaan, se ravistaa yhteiskuntaamme monin tavoin eikä vähiten taloudellisesti.”

• GreensIn favour

  The Greens supported the proposal and emphasised strengthening internal and external security, as well as accelerating the green transition and energy independence amidst the crises.

  ”Tämän kauden aikana poikkeuksellisuudesta on tullut normi; tämäkin budjetti on laadittu poikkeuksellisena ajankohtana.”

• Left AllianceSplit

  The majority of the group supported the budget's investments in employment, education and the livelihood of low-income earners amidst the crises, but strong criticism was also voiced from within the group against doubling military spending and NATO preparations.

  ”Koronakriisi, Ukrainan sota, inflaatio ja energiakriisi ovat olleet ja ovat asioita, jotka on vain hoidettava riippumatta siitä, mitkä puolueet ovat hallituksessa.”

• Swedish People's PartyIn favour

  The Swedish People's Party supported the proposal, viewing it as bringing stability, security and confidence in the future to families and businesses, and as sufficiently strengthening defence and education.

  ”Lisäpanostukset sisäiseen turvallisuuteen ovat aivan välttämättömiä nykymaailman ja lähialueidemme tilanteen takia.”

• National Coalition PartyAgainst

  The National Coalition Party opposed the budget proposal as reckless indebtedness and criticised the Government for a lack of expenditure prioritisation and genuine fiscal adjustment measures.

  ”Ei tässä budjettiesityksessä ole yhtään uutta toimea, joka toisi lisää tuloja, emmekä me näe, kun me käymme sen läpi, mistä olisi säästetty, missä olisi priorisoitu. Tämä on se ongelma.”

• Finns PartyAgainst

  The Finns Party opposed the budget due to excessive borrowing and a failure to cut secondary spending, although they supported strengthening defence and border security.

  ”Olette tehneet perustellut esitykset Suomen turvallisuuden ja huoltovarmuuden parantamiseksi, mutta olette tehneet sen muuttamatta mitään muuta. Budjetti on velkaa velan päälle.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The Christian Democrats criticised the ongoing debt spiral and the Government's internal discord over the need to adjust central government finances in a weakening economic situation.

  ”Mutta harmittaa, että sieltä hallituksen sisältä näyttää löytyvän aika iso juopa suhteessa siihen, mitä se valtionvelka oikein on, onko se hyvästä vai onko se pahasta.”

• Movement NowAgainst

  Movement Now criticised the budget and the traditional parties for failing to reform Finland's economy while economic development has stagnated for a long time.

  ”Alla de gamla partierna har suttit i regeringen turvis och inga förnyelser har gjorts i Finland. Finlands ekonomi har inte utvecklats de senaste 15 åren.”

• Rydman groupAgainst

  Non-attached member Rydman criticised the deficit-based economic policy and pointed out that crises do not justify unlimited borrowing.

  ”Se ei kuitenkaan tarkoita sitä, että mikä tahansa velka tai miten suuri velka tahansa olisi perusteltavissa ja oikein.”

This digest was generated by AI from 962 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.