Central government budget for 2016

Key points of the debate

The debate focused on the 2016 central government budget as well as proposed spending cuts and structural reforms. The government parties considered expenditure adjustment and balancing public finances essential measures to break the prolonged recession and curb debt accumulation. The opposition, for its part, fiercely opposed the budget proposal and criticised cuts to education, social security and public transport as unfair and harmful to growth.

• –Are the savings targeted at education and social security fair?
• –Do the adjustment measures erode domestic purchasing power and the preconditions for growth too much?
• –Do the appropriation cuts to public transport and rail transport unreasonably weaken regional vitality?

• National Coalition PartyIn favour

  The National Coalition Party considered the proposal necessary to reduce central government spending and turn the prolonged recession into growth through public expenditure adjustment.

  ”Tämä budjetti tulee pienentämään valtion menoja ja hidastaa velkaantumista, mikä on todellakin tarpeen.”

• Finns PartyIn favour

  The Finns Party supported the proposal, stating that the debt cycle must be broken through cuts and structural reforms to safeguard welfare in the future.

  ”Suomen sairaus ei parane velkalaastarilla eikä varsinkaan kieltäytymällä hoidoista ja leikkauksista.”

• Centre PartyIn favour

  The Centre Party defended the budget as a necessary change of course to adjust public finances, curb government debt accumulation and create conditions for new jobs.

  ”Rohkaisevaa on, että päätökset Suomen suunnan muuttamiseksi ovat vielä omissa käsissämme.”

• Social DemocratsAgainst

  The Social Democrats criticised the budget for its harsh line of cuts, which weakens the livelihood of the disadvantaged, reduces purchasing power and does not provide sufficient measures to support employment and growth.

  ”Joka odotti hallituksen tarttuvan budjetillaan kasvuun ja työllisyyteen ja huolehtivan säästöjen oikeudenmukaisuudesta vaikeiden aikojen keskellä, joutuu pettymään.”

• GreensAgainst

  The Greens opposed the budget, especially because of the substantial education cuts it contains and the reductions in investments for the future.

  ”Vihreä eduskuntaryhmä tahtoo korostaa vuoden 2016 budjetin ja koko vaalikauden osalta, että koulutussäästöille on vaihtoehto.”

• Left AllianceAgainst

  The Left Alliance rejected the budget, considering that the cuts fall disproportionately on low-income earners, increase income inequality and hamper economic growth.

  ”Lainaus: "Hallitus rapauttaa Suomen tulevaisuutta.”

• Swedish People's PartyAgainst

  The Swedish People's Party considered that the budget is not balanced and does not create a sustainable foundation for economic and export growth, even though curbing debt accumulation was considered important.

  ”Budjettitasapaino on yksi asia, tasapainoinen budjetti toinen. Tämä budjetti ei ole kumpaakaan.”

• Christian DemocratsAgainst

  The Christian Democrats shared the concern about central government debt, but criticised the unfair targeting of savings and the cutting of domestic purchasing power.

  ”Olemme valmiit tinkimään omastamme, kunhan säästäminen tapahtuu järkevästi ja oikeudenmukaisesti.”

This digest was generated by AI from 1038 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.