Swedish election 2010

[Marokai Backbeat]

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.

Certainly better than some of the other commentary in the thread.

[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.

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).

The map is kind of small but it does look like most of the smallest districts in the center are red.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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's not really true of Britain (except, perhaps, the 2001 election). The Tories do alright in London; they didn't poll all that much lower there than they did nationally and were genuinely shocked not to top the poll citywide. Most other large cities are industrial and not 'natural' Tory territory anyway; they've crashed in the posh parts of most of those, of course, but that's largely because they've been supplanted as the middle class anti-socialist party of record in them by the LibDems.

It's also worth recalling that when the Tories preached 'rightwing populist socially conservative garbage' the hardest (the 1987 General Election) they did better in London than they had in any General Election since the 1930s.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

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 think that their base always beeing the city, has forced them to be more open minded than the right-wing parties in other countries. Since most of Moderate Party politicians has come from the cities, city ideals has formed their values.

Besides this is Sweden, we don't really have more than one really socially conservative area in the whole country, the South-Swedish Highland (Which votes heavily for the Christian Democrats). So adopting a populist socially conservative rethoric would never have been politicly sensible or benifitial for the Moderate Party, in difference to the US for example where moving to the right on social issues benefitted the Republicans since that helped them make huge gains in poor but socially conservative areas in for example the South. Moving to the right for the Moderates would never have had any such effects big enough to make it worth losing wealthy city areas.

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.

Some parts of Stockholm are indeed competive, although I'd still like to point out that 2002 was a low-point politicly for the right, and could argubly count as a minor Red-Green landslide. My city for example that has only been won three times by the left since 1976, went red-green in 02. So even if the red-greens will win in September I'd expect the Alliance to hold onto most of the Stockholm area.  

[Hash]

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.

It certainly is quite correct for Sweden as well as the US, but it isn't in France. The cities moved to the left in France partly as a result of the gentrification of the PS which started in 1981. It became less of a deathly scary red dragon, abandoned its old rural electoral machines and wasn't extremely socialistic once in power. Furthemore, the electorate of the inner core of many cities (but not all) also changed from old bourgeois to the bobo type. In Paris, the left also gained ground rapidly in the 90s with Chirac's gradual departure from local politics and the emergence of political scandals in the Parisian RPR. But, Paris is not a right-wing city.

The UMP won the inner city areas of Rennes in 2010 (and by a fair margin as well), and they still do extremely well in the bourgeois enclaves of Marseille, Lyon and Paris. The UMP lost Brest Centre in 2008, and the UMP still holds most of its urban cantons in the inner cores of various cities. Though Marseille and Le Havre are extremely class stratified, leading to more pronounced and durable antagonisms.

Saying that French urban voters were turned off by "populist social conservative" rhetoric is almost entirely false.

[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).

The map is kind of small but it does look like most of the smallest districts in the center are red.

I honestly have trouble seeing anything on that map, but I don't see how it matters since I looked at the actual results. And I don't really have to since it's like saying that it looks from a map as if Chicago or San Fransisco voted Republican in an election. Stockholm going left doesn't really happen, at least not in modern times.

Besides, unless I'm wrong the map you're posting merely says what party is the biggest in every district which is a completely meaningless statistic in a country like Sweden which uses PR. S has been the biggest party in every democratic election ever held in Sweden, since the right has always been more fractured.

In 2002 in particular, M did especially poorly getting less than half of the vote of the SAP.

[Mjh]

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.

If you look at the different parties in Scandinavia it isn't that strange. Both Norway and Denmark have rather large populist parties in the form of Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark) and Fremskrittspartiet. These have sort of monopolised the socially conservative populist vote in the two countries. Their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism, but not multiculturalism, which is why they have abandoned the left.

Because of this, the more "Bourgeois" parties of the Centre-Right (Like Høyre in Norway) can avoid the sort of populism that turns off their core vote in the middle class.

Sweden is somehow different though, in the respect that they don't have a large party of the populist right.

[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.

Certainly better than some of the other commentary in the thread.

You think a semi-clueless post like that (which has been accompanied by some other pretty strange comments) is better than what commentary? I'm genuinely curious as to what you are referring to here...

[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.

If you look at the different parties in Scandinavia it isn't that strange. Both Norway and Denmark have rather large populist parties in the form of Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark) and Fremskrittspartiet. These have sort of monopolised the socially conservative populist vote in the two countries. Their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism, but not multiculturalism, which is why they have abandoned the left.

Because of this, the more "Bourgeois" parties of the Centre-Right (Like Høyre in Norway) can avoid the sort of populism that turns off their core vote in the middle class.

Sweden is somehow different though, in the respect that they don't have a large party of the populist right.

The problem with that theory is that those voters didn't vote right-wing before, they voted left to a large extent.

The underlying factor is that Scandinavian countries are pretty homogenous and we don't really have much in the way of wedge issues. Politics here is very much class-based.

[Hash]

their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism

Fremskrittspartiet voters as a rule don't want 'big government' or 'statism'. Opposition to high taxes and big spending is one of the party's hallmark...

[Gustaf]

their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism

Fremskrittspartiet voters as a rule don't want 'big government' or 'statism'. Opposition to high taxes and big spending is one of the party's hallmark...

These things are a bit different from country to country. The kind of people who vote for these parties in Scandinavia are [heavy generalization] young blue-collar males who are disgruntled, racist and favour low taxes[/heavy generalization]. These voters typically used to vote for the left.

If you look at the founders of these parties they tend to be old upper-class males who are disgruntled, racist and favour low taxes. So there is something of a disconnect there that makes for interesting results every now and then.

[Mjh]

their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism

Fremskrittspartiet voters as a rule don't want 'big government' or 'statism'. Opposition to high taxes and big spending is one of the party's hallmark...

I know that is how Fremskrittspartiet likes to portray themselves to foreigners (especially Americans) but it is not how they present themselves in Norwegian politics. They indeed want less taxes (like all parties of the populist right), but not less spending. The only spending Fremskrittspartiet doesnt't approve of is that which goes to immigrants and third-world aid.
Half the time their criticism of the current left-wing government is that the government don't use more money, that the government doesn't centralize more. etc.

[Mjh]

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.

If you look at the different parties in Scandinavia it isn't that strange. Both Norway and Denmark have rather large populist parties in the form of Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark) and Fremskrittspartiet. These have sort of monopolised the socially conservative populist vote in the two countries. Their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism, but not multiculturalism, which is why they have abandoned the left.

Because of this, the more "Bourgeois" parties of the Centre-Right (Like Høyre in Norway) can avoid the sort of populism that turns off their core vote in the middle class.

Sweden is somehow different though, in the respect that they don't have a large party of the populist right.

The problem with that theory is that those voters didn't vote right-wing before, they voted left to a large extent.

The underlying factor is that Scandinavian countries are pretty homogenous and we don't really have much in the way of wedge issues. Politics here is very much class-based.

I know that Gustaf. I live in Scandinavia as well.

But the theory does describe the realignement that has taken place in Scandinavian politics (at least Denmark and Norway); where a large chunk of the old working class vote now belongs to the right.

[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.

If you look at the different parties in Scandinavia it isn't that strange. Both Norway and Denmark have rather large populist parties in the form of Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark) and Fremskrittspartiet. These have sort of monopolised the socially conservative populist vote in the two countries. Their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism, but not multiculturalism, which is why they have abandoned the left.

Because of this, the more "Bourgeois" parties of the Centre-Right (Like Høyre in Norway) can avoid the sort of populism that turns off their core vote in the middle class.

Sweden is somehow different though, in the respect that they don't have a large party of the populist right.

The problem with that theory is that those voters didn't vote right-wing before, they voted left to a large extent.

The underlying factor is that Scandinavian countries are pretty homogenous and we don't really have much in the way of wedge issues. Politics here is very much class-based.

I know that Gustaf. I live in Scandinavia as well.

But the theory does describe the realignement that has taken place in Scandinavian politics (at least Denmark and Norway); where a large chunk of the old working class vote now belongs to the right.

Oh, I didn't know that. I didn't mean to come off as condescending and I apologize if I did.

The point I was after is more that why the trend you're describing is happening (in Sweden too with the rise of SD, although not to the same extent) it isn't really the same as this supposed urban/rural-social conservatism thing that DL is talking about, imo.

From what I've seen these voters are not necessarily all that socially conservative beyond the fact that they want to restrict immigration. They're often not particularly religious, for instance.

Where in Scandinavia do you come from? I'm guessing Norway based on these last posts?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

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.

If you look at the different parties in Scandinavia it isn't that strange. Both Norway and Denmark have rather large populist parties in the form of Dansk Folkeparti (Denmark) and Fremskrittspartiet. These have sort of monopolised the socially conservative populist vote in the two countries. Their core are often old working class voters that want big government and statism, but not multiculturalism, which is why they have abandoned the left.

Because of this, the more "Bourgeois" parties of the Centre-Right (Like Høyre in Norway) can avoid the sort of populism that turns off their core vote in the middle class.

Sweden is somehow different though, in the respect that they don't have a large party of the populist right.

The problem with that theory is that those voters didn't vote right-wing before, they voted left to a large extent.

The underlying factor is that Scandinavian countries are pretty homogenous and we don't really have much in the way of wedge issues. Politics here is very much class-based.

I know that Gustaf. I live in Scandinavia as well.

But the theory does describe the realignement that has taken place in Scandinavian politics (at least Denmark and Norway); where a large chunk of the old working class vote now belongs to the right.

What I don't understand though is how Fremskritt managed to become so big? I mean here in Sweden we sometimes joke about how dumb Norwegians are suppouse to be... but I refuse to believe that 22% of the population actually buy their crap about if we just get rid of immigrants and use more of our oil money, we can afford to both increase spending and lower taxes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, the mainstream conservative party there is made of fail.

Btw, links to detailed electoral data are always welcome

[Gustaf]

Well, the mainstream conservative party there is made of fail.

Btw, links to detailed electoral data are always welcome

Well, then I hope you saw the one I posted.

(and as regards Fremskrittspartiet, I have to say that I'm almost impressed by Norwegians that no more than 22% vote for such an alluring populist argument. How many countries sitting on that much money manages to handle it responsibly? Ask Saudi-Arabia. Even better, ask Nauru)

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Well, the mainstream conservative party there is made of fail.

Btw, links to detailed electoral data are always welcome

Well since we've been disussing Stockholm.

Stockholm inner-city results from 06

Stockholm County's results 06 (- Stockholm's inner-city)

Stockholm inner-city 02

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I just discovered something horrefying. Fremskritt's leader is named Siv Jensen! That's my grandmother's name.

[DL]

So, I guess what is very unusual in Swedish politics is the fact that Stockholm itself tends to vote much more for the rightwing parties than does the country as a whole. I can think of lots of examples of countries where the major capitals vote to the LEFT of the country as a whole (i.e. Canada and the US - where the GOP and the Conservatives practically don't exist in the cities), or the UK where Labour did a lot better in London than across England, or France where Paris now leans slightly to the left compared to all of France. In Germany, Berlin has always been known as "red Berlin" back to the pre-war period when it was a bulwark against Nazism and elected lots of Socialists and Communists. I think that the Labor parties in New Zealand and Australia tend to win most of the seats in the major cities.

I can also think of countries like Norway or Spain where for the most part the capital is a bellwether where the popular vote tends to closely match the national vote totals. But I think Sweden is quite exceptional in terms of being a country where the biggest city and capital votes significantly to the RIGHT of the rest of the country - and I'm not sure why that is. Some people have talked about gentrification and high cost of housing in Stockholm - but London, Paris and New York are not exactly cheap and they tend to vote to the left of the countries they are in.

[Hash]

but London, Paris and New York are not exactly cheap and they tend to vote to the left of the countries they are in.

In Paris, as I said before, it's the bobo vote. "The wallet on the right, the heart on the left".

You know the answer to why New York's Upper East Side isn't a GOP stronghold.

[DL]

but London, Paris and New York are not exactly cheap and they tend to vote to the left of the countries they are in.

In Paris, as I said before, it's the bobo vote. "The wallet on the right, the heart on the left".

You know the answer to why New York's Upper East Side isn't a GOP stronghold.

so why no "bobo vote" in Stockholm? I always thought that Stockholm had tons of people making good money but who have a social conscience.

Of course the Upper East Side in New York was a GOP stronghold at one time - back when the GOP was the party of Wall St. and had people like Nelson Rockefeller.  But then the GOP got taken over by Bible-thumping crackpots who want to scrap abortion rights and who hate gays etc... and the Upper East Side dropped the GOP like a hot potato.

[Хahar 🤔]

but London, Paris and New York are not exactly cheap and they tend to vote to the left of the countries they are in.

In Paris, as I said before, it's the bobo vote. "The wallet on the right, the heart on the left".

You know the answer to why New York's Upper East Side isn't a GOP stronghold.

so why no "bobo vote" in Stockholm? I always thought that Stockholm had tons of people making good money but who have a social conscience.

Of course the Upper East Side in New York was a GOP stronghold at one time - back when the GOP was the party of Wall St. and had people like Nelson Rockefeller.  But then the GOP got taken over by Bible-thumping crackpots who want to scrap abortion rights and who hate gays etc... and the Upper East Side dropped the GOP like a hot potato.

That process hasn't happened to the Swedish right, and so places like the Upper East Side still vote for the right.

[Gustaf]

It is also a question of alignment. The left supports a system of taxing Stockholm to transfer money to the rest of the country (there is a system which literally does just that) and the right opposes it. That sort of thing obviously tilts things quite a bit.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

or the UK where Labour did a lot better in London than across England

...yet worse than in almost any other large city. At least if we're defining London as the GLC/GLA area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A very high proportion of Labour voters in London live in social housing, so are actually outside the property market. I don't know how much social housing (or the Swedish equivalent) there is in Stockholm, but I'm guessing not a great deal. Another issue is minorities; how white is Stockholm?