Local politics may well play a part, but IA is the party in...

Local politics may well play a part, but IA is the party in power, and that is who will get the blame when thngs go wrong. The fishing law impacts more on the smaller boat owners, and it is they who will suffer most. A look at the voting figures over the last seven elections, would indicate that Siumut has done slightly better on average, than IA. Also, don't forget the Democrats, who appear to favour mining at Kvanefjeld, which aligns them more with Siumut than IA. Without more precise information it difficult to tell how these shfts in voting patterns go, but the indications seem to be that Democrat voters will give their votes to Siumut and vice versa, rather than IA, depending on what is happening in Greenland.

IA don't seem to have been a particularly efficient governing party, and this could mark a turning point in Greenland politics, with regard to mining. The point I was making in my earlier post about the workforce at Churchill Falls in Labrador, was that Kvanefjeld has the potential to provide alternative well paid work for the local populace, under similar conditions to that obtaining in Labrador, particularly as the snow cover in southern Greenland is reducing with rising temperatures. Which is why ETM should be concentrating on promoting the substantial benefits for Greenland if Kvanefjeld goes ahead.