Swedish election 2010

[Hash]

Inner-city areas in France are very wealthy and used to be very right-wing. Now most, if not all, of these old bourgeois areas, are held by the left and vote for the left regularly. European cities aren't as universally left-leaning as they are in the US.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm talking about the city itself. Suburbs are not part of the city, ever. Period.

But where do the suburbs begin and the city end?

There are clearly defined borders. For example note the Hennepin County map:



It's quite obvious what is the city and what are suburbs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There are clearly defined borders.

Aha... legal boundaries...



Most people in (say) Morley or Yeadon would not take too kindly to being told that they live in Leeds. Both towns are, as you can see, inside the boundaries covered by Leeds City Council. Are people in those towns wrong to consider themselves as not living in Leeds? And if so, why? Are cities only legal entities, or do they have some other existence?

[Gustaf]

Couple of points to make here:

1. The idea that the centre-right has brought chaos to Sweden is stupid. There have been two previous periods of centre-right rule, 1976 and 1991 as has been mentioned. In 1976 the economy began collapsing about a month after the election. It obviously had nothing to do with the centre-right election victory. It was basically the same in 1991. In both cases the economic woes that ensued had nothing to do with the policies pursued by the governments (this is especially true since the 1976 goverment pursued mostly left-wing policies).

Thinking this shows that one has no understanding of economy or is an utter hack (especially if you simultaneously claim that the social democratic government in Greece has no responsibility for the crisis there!).

2. It is important to understand the historical context of Swedish politics. Traditionally, the Social Democrats would have nothing to do with the Communists, but the Communists had to support them, since toppling a Labour government in favour of a right-wing one would not sit well with their voters. The SAP was big enough to rule with passive support from the Communists most of the time. They generally tended to prefer ruling together with the Centre Party however, and pragmatic such governments were formed every now and then. In modern times two things have happened.

a) the Greens have emerged and that coupled with other trends has weakened the SAP substantially. I don't think they have broken 40% of the vote since 1994 and can thus not realistically hope to rule on their own any longer. Also, the Greens lack the traditional ideological connection to the labour movement that the Left Party still has and does not feel any loyalty towards the SAP. The Greens have therefore stated repeatedly that they will only support the SAP if allowed seats in the government (the SAP has not allowed other parties to take cabinet posts since the 50s, despite having a majority of the seats only for a total of 2 or 4 years since then).

b) The Centre Party and the other minor centre-right parties have all moved rightwards, ruling out any possibility of cooperation with the SAP. In the last election the cohesiveness of the centre-right coalition with a common platform and plan for what to do  when elected is believed to have contributed greatly to their victory.

So, with Mona Sahlin coming in as a reformer of the party she decided to form a coalition of the left campaigning as a whole and intending to form a coalition government. This was done in a bungled way though. She originally said that only the Greens would be allowed on board, which angered the trade unions, who distrust the Greens environmentalist zeal (they're afraid it will lead to job-losses in the industry) and who, to an extent, have traditional links to the Left. She eventually had to back-track and let the Left in.

3. In Sweden the cities are much richer than the countryside, and voting is almost completely class-based. So it is no wonder that the cities lean right and the countryside left. It is also not really true that the suburbs form the basis of the right around the cities. Some suburbs do, but in the Stockholm upper class, "suburb" is a cuss word. Someone coming from the suburbs is looked down on as poor, because most Stockholm suburbs are poor and contain a lot of immigrants. So-called "villa suburbs", like Nacka, Lidingö or Danderyd are rich and right-leaning, but others, like Botkyrka, Haninge and Sundbyberg are much poorer and tend to lean left. In Stockholm city, the strength of the right derives from the core of the city, while the further out you get the stronger the left vote.

[Gustaf]

For those interested, here is a link to the results in 2006: http://www.val.se/val/val2006/slutlig/R/rike/roster.html It appears not to be available in English, but it shouldn't be too hard to navigate.

The Swedish system used a modified d'Hondt. In each constituency, the vote of each party is divided by 1,4. Then the biggest party gets a seat and their original number of votes is divided by 3. Whoever then has the biggest number gets the second vote and get their share divided, etc.

The order of numbers is:

1.4
3
5
7
etc

The reason it starts with 1.4 rather than 1 is that the SAP wanted the system to benefit the largest party (that is, themselves). Since Sweden also uses evening out seats to bring the distribution closer to the overall national shares of the popular vote it typically does not matter much, however.

The key problem for the left is that Mona Sahlin is so vastly unpopular. She is somewhat dragged down by her past scandals and people don't trust her to lead the country. A presidential election would be won by Reinfeldt in a landslide (60-40 at the very least) but this isn't a presidential election, of course.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I partially agree with you here Gustaf, in that the suburbs are not the only reason Swedish cities are right-wing but it is still so that the wealthy villa suburbs around Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö are the most right-wing voting places in Sweden and important part of the Moderate Party's base.

Also "förort" really doesn't imply (or even mean) the same thing as the English "suburb". I don't think that anyone would use "förort" to describe Lidingö or Täby although these places are suburbs, while "förort" is constantly used for Rosengård in Malmö, although Rosengård is actually located in the inner-city area.   

Otherwise you do a fine job explaining Swedish politics. Although I'm still intrested to hear what you think about this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I partially agree with you here Gustaf, in that the suburbs are not the only reason Swedish cities are right-wing but it is still so that the wealthy villa suburbs around Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö are the most right-wing voting places in Sweden and important part of the Moderate Party's base.

Also "förort" really doesn't imply (or even mean) the same thing as the English "suburb". I don't think that anyone would use "förort" to describe Lidingö or Täby although these places are suburbs, while "förort" is constantly used for Rosengård in Malmö, although Rosengård is actually located in the inner-city area.   

Otherwise you do a fine job explaining Swedish politics. Although I'm still intrested to hear what you think about this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As far as the language confusion surrounding suburbs, yeah, what you're saying is basically what I was trying to get at too. However, in a technical sense, suburb=förort. I'd say that the main difference is that suburbs are more generally rich in the US compared to Sweden, which has given the words very different connotations. As I pointed out there are suburbs similar to the American ones but they have the distinct classification of "villaförort" (villa being another intranslatable word, as far as I know).

Anyway, yeah, in the scenario you're mentioning (which I think is quite likely) I'm not sure. It depends a little bit on who gets the most votes. If the government "wins" in this scenario they may be able to hang on as a minority government and I think the Greens joining them would be very likely.

If the left wins it will be much more complicated. The first reason is that I think passive support from SD for a centre-right government is much more likely (they absolutely LOATHE Sahlin). The second is that I think the centre-right is much more entrenched against the SAP than the Greens are towards the right.

Still, I think we might see FP switch sides in that scenario. Actually, the more likely outcome might be a government excluding the Left but including say both C and FP and the Greens.

Finally, there is always the option of a new election. It is completely out of tradition in Sweden, but then again, we never really had such a messed up situation before.

[DL]

"As I pointed out there are suburbs similar to the American ones but they have the distinct classification of "villaförort" (villa being another intranslatable word, as far as I know). "

I speak some Swedish - I always thought that "villa" was the Swedish word for a detached single family home in an urban area (ie: not a farmhouse)

[Gustaf]

"As I pointed out there are suburbs similar to the American ones but they have the distinct classification of "villaförort" (villa being another intranslatable word, as far as I know). "

I speak some Swedish - I always thought that "villa" was the Swedish word for a detached single family home in an urban area (ie: not a farmhouse)

Yes, that is a decent definition of villa. Of course, "detached single family home in an urban area" is a bit cumbersome to put into a word.

[Gustaf]

In the latest Demoskop poll the SAP drops below 30% while M, at 34.5%, is the biggest party. Overall, the government leads by by 6%.

Demoskop isn't the best institute but it is still an interesting trend.

[rob in cal]

Is there any concern on the Alliance part that they could lose the election merely because the Center and Christian Democrats both just miss the 4% threshold?  Say support for the moderates grows, but grows too much so that the other parties are just weakened enough to win about 7% of the vote combined, but no seats.  Have any parties discussed lowering the threshold %?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Is there any concern on the Alliance part that they could lose the election merely because the Center and Christian Democrats both just miss the 4% threshold?  Say support for the moderates grows, but grows too much so that the other parties are just weakened enough to win about 7% of the vote combined, but no seats.  Have any parties discussed lowering the threshold %?

There is indeed such a concern among some Alliance politicians and voters. Especially the Christian Democrats has been just above or under the 4% threshold in several polls the last year. There was a poll in 08 (or maybe it was 09) I remember that showed exactly that scenario. The Alliance won over the Red-Greens by 1%, but the Christian Democrats only got 3,8% so the Red-Greens would have won anyway. 

But no the idea of lowering the threshold has not been discussed. It might be suggested if a minor party falls out and ends up causing their coalition to lose when otherwise they would have won, but otherwise I'd dare say the 4% is pretty safe. (Remember the established parties also want to have the threshold remain high enough to keep the Sweden Democrats and Pirates out of Parliament)

[Gustaf]

Is there any concern on the Alliance part that they could lose the election merely because the Center and Christian Democrats both just miss the 4% threshold?  Say support for the moderates grows, but grows too much so that the other parties are just weakened enough to win about 7% of the vote combined, but no seats.  Have any parties discussed lowering the threshold %?

There is indeed such a concern among some Alliance politicians and voters. Especially the Christian Democrats has been just above or under the 4% threshold in several polls the last year. There was a poll in 08 (or maybe it was 09) I remember that showed exactly that scenario. The Alliance won over the Red-Greens by 1%, but the Christian Democrats only got 3,8% so the Red-Greens would have won anyway. 

But no the idea of lowering the threshold has not been discussed. It might be suggested if a minor party falls out and ends up causing their coalition to lose when otherwise they would have won, but otherwise I'd dare say the 4% is pretty safe. (Remember the established parties also want to have the threshold remain high enough to keep the Sweden Democrats and Pirates out of Parliament)

The 4% threshold was originally devised as a compromise - the SAP wanted it low enough to make sure the Communists got in and could give them passive support, while the FP wanted it high so as to keep out the Christian Democrats who were eating into their evangelical base.

Anyway, as regards the other part of the question, there is a risk but I personally doubt it, for two reasons.

1. Both C and KD are the kind of parties who tend to gain support in election campaigns. They always outperform the polls in between the elections. M is the other way around, they always lose support, often rather a lot of it too.

2. If they do poll too weakly there will likely be a "brother 4%" movement, similar to the "comrade 4%" phenomenon that helped keep the communists in parliament from 1968 and onwards.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I just love Aftonbladet

The Red-Greens can't agree on anything, but that is of course alright, they're three different parties after all, they can't be expected to agree on all issues 100%. But when the Alliance parties have a disagreement on Labour laws, it's apperently WAR IN THE ALLIANCE.

Btw Gustaf, where did your friend Túrin go? I'd be intresting to have the oppinion of someone from the Swedish left here as well.

[Hash]

Is Stockholm similar to Paris or Sao Paulo in that the city itself is wealthy and the working-class lives in the proletarian hinterland surrounding the city, or is there at all an history of major industrialization and working-class politics in the Stockholm region at all?

[DL]

Like any city, Stockholm has its rich and poor areas. For example, Sodermalm was historically the "Brooklyn of Stockholm" and voted overwhelmingly for the left. It is now quite gentrified (like much of Brooklyn today too) - but still votes heavily for left-leaning parties.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Like any city, Stockholm has its rich and poor areas. For example, Sodermalm was historically the "Brooklyn of Stockholm" and voted overwhelmingly for the left. It is now quite gentrified (like much of Brooklyn today too) - but still votes heavily for left-leaning parties.

Södermalm is indeed inner-city Stockholm's most left-leaning area, but it doesn't vote heavily for them any longer. I'm actually pretty sure the Alliance won there in 06, considering the constituency it's located in was won by the right 50,56% against 44,69%, but I might be wrong as that constituency also includes Enskede and Old Town Stockholm.

DL what exactly is your relation to Sweden? I'm curious as you seem to know a lot about us, and also know some Swedish. 

[Gustaf]

Is Stockholm similar to Paris or Sao Paulo in that the city itself is wealthy and the working-class lives in the proletarian hinterland surrounding the city, or is there at all an history of major industrialization and working-class politics in the Stockholm region at all?

Stockholm city used to have a large working-class area (Södermalm) which I think was similar to Montmartre in Paris, in that it was heavily romanticized by artists and the cultural left. Over time this led to a lot of people wanting to live there, driving up prices and pricing out all the workers. Now, only rich people can afford to live there, and it does not vote heavily left, it is more 50-50.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Most centres of industrialisation in Sweden were away from the capital. Which isn't that unusual.

[DL]

I lived in Stockholm for a year as a student in the late 80s and learned the language etc...

I think the other factor in Sweden is that the "bourgeois" parties tend to NOT to preach any of the rightwing populist socially conservative garbage you see in other countries. In the US, UK, France and many other countries people in the cities get turned off the small "c" conservative parties because they get bogged down in that. That doesn't seem to happen as much in Sweden. so in Sweden there is very much a class-based left/right cleavage on economic issues and it doesn't seem to get side tracked by social issues etc...

In Canada, where I live, the Conservatives used to do quite well in Toronto and Vancouver and would win seats in the middle of the city - then they became more of a GOP style populist, socially conservative party that was into "God and guns" and now they hold no seats at all in any of the biggest cities and they ran fourth behind even the Green party in a byelection in Toronto Centre - a riding they won as recently as the late 80s!

All that being said, Sweden is not the only country where city centres vote for the more conservative parties. In Germany, the CDU seems to win constituencies in the middle of Frankfurt and Dusseldorf even when they are doing badly nationwide. In Italy, Milan is a big stronghold for that pig Berlusconi. Even Florence which over is a major leftwing stronghold - I think I read that the inner city where all the tourist sights are tend to vote for the "right" since you need to be a millionaire to be able to afford to live there.

[Gustaf]

Most centres of industrialisation in Sweden were away from the capital. Which isn't that unusual.

Yes, that's an important point. If you look at smaller and medium-sized towns in the central and Northern parts of Sweden, they tend to be heavily red-green (actually, heavily red mostly). That's where all the workers used to be. Now, there aren't really any workers left of course.

[DL]

What do people think about my earlier comment about how the "bourgeois" parties have not fallen for the kind of populist socially conservative rhetoric that rightwing parties in other countries have adopted which tends to turn off urban voters.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Actually it appears that in 2002 when the Social Democrats won, they actually won much of Stockholm including the most inner-city areas. The areas the Moderate Heroes won look more suburban. So much of Stockholm is certainly competitive, even if the entire area voted Moderate Hero in 2006.

[Gustaf]

Actually it appears that in 2002 when the Social Democrats won, they actually won much of Stockholm including the most inner-city areas. The areas the Moderate Heroes won look more suburban. So much of Stockholm is certainly competitive, even if the entire area voted Moderate Hero in 2006.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on, but it is nonsense. I mean, I actually live in Stockholm so I think I know better what is suburban and not.

It is true that in 2002 (an election won by the left nationally by almost 10% they virtually tied Stockholm (although the right still won more votes there).

It is not true, however, that they won the inner-city areas. They voted overwhelmingly for the right. There is no easy way to ascertain the exact numbers though since the inner-city does not correspond to a given district(s).

[Gustaf]

What do people think about my earlier comment about how the "bourgeois" parties have not fallen for the kind of populist socially conservative rhetoric that rightwing parties in other countries have adopted which tends to turn off urban voters.

You loaded your comment with a lot of political commentary, but yeah, social issues are less important in Sweden. It should be noted though, that the fragmentation of the right contributes to this. Most of the blue votes in Stockholm come from M and FP, while most of the rural blue votes flow to C and KD.