The Big Bad Swedish Politics & News Thread

[eric82oslo]

New YouGov poll has SD at the highest ever and with a solid margin to the Moderates and SAP. Fokpartiet below the threshold, so an M + SD majority.

SD 27.3
Social Democrats 21.8
Moderates 20.0

Centre 7.5
KD 4.9
Folkpartiet 3.7

Looks like there will be a grand coalition in Sweden after the next election, just like in Germany.

Btw, what happened to Folkpartiet??

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Looks like there will be a grand coalition in Sweden after the next election, just like in Germany.

Nah, that is not going to happen. Especially not if M+S doesn't even maintain a majority together. A pure M minority would probably be more stable if this were the actual results.

Btw, what happened to Folkpartiet??

They're crap. It's as simple as that.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

People missed my question, so I'll ask again: is Sweden likely to join NATO in the near future?

[politicus]

People missed my question, so I'll ask again: is Sweden likely to join NATO in the near future?

Both Centre and KD have recently changed their position to being pro. So all four mainstream centre-right parties (old Alliance) support it. SAP is deeply divided

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

People missed my question, so I'll ask again: is Sweden likely to join NATO in the near future?

No, not really. The Social Democrats are still too negative towards the idea, and even in a hypothetical situation were the Alliance would get their own majority again, they probably wouldn't be willing to take such a big step without support from the other side, as Defense policy by tradition is made across the aisle in Sweden and it would be a huge change. It's a shame (in my opinion) but there you have it.

However, if Russia keeps getting more aggressive, all bets are off.

[politicus]

Minister of Defence Thomas Hultkvist talks about increased cooperation about military exercises, research and international operations, while Foreign Minister Margot Wallström refuses any change in the alliance free foreign policy.

In an interview Tomas Ries, who is a researcher at Försvarshögskolan (the Defence Academy), describes the situation in SAP as a divide between business "sosser", who are focused on a strong defence and jobs in the armament industry vs. the leftist anti-militarist, "peace through diplomacy"-types, who are supported by the women's federation, Broderskabsbevægelsen (the Brotherhood Movement - Christian SocDems) and the remains of the peace movement + their antimilitarist partner Mp is against it. So not happening during the current government.

Two years ago defence chief Sverker Göransson said Sweden could only be partially defended and only for a week with the current defence! And that sent shock waves through the establishment + everything about the Swedish military is already NATO-standard since 1992 (as Ries says, even the underwear..); Link 16 and the Gripen fighter planes are adapted to NATO standards and they allow NATO exercises on Swedish territory. As he points out: The Russians already consider Sweden and Finland secret NATO members, so the change would be mostly symbolic.

Ries thinks they are close to membership, but that it requires a compromise between the centre-right and SAP + clarification of whether the parties want a referendum on the issue or not.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The Russians already consider Sweden and Finland secret NATO members.

That's because we are secret NATO members. As you point out, it's not even that secret. It is only in name that we aren't members.

It is an correct analysis that there is a divide in the Social Democratic Party. However the people who doesn't want an official membership in their ranks greatly outnumber the people who do. So I wouldn't describe it as membership being imminent. It certainly won't happen until after the 2018 elections unless Russia would invade the Baltic countries.

Though as a staunch supporter of Swedish membership in NATO, I would be happy to be proven wrong. 

[politicus]

SD is against NATO-membership (but pro Partnership for Peace), but they want a formal military alliance with Finland "too make neutrality more credible". Most of their voters are pro-NATO.

(needless to say the Left Party is against..)

[politicus]

Using the YuGov poll:

Parties above threshold

Pro membership:
Moderates 20.0
Centre 7.5
KD 4.9

Total 32.4

Divided:
Social Democrats 21.8

Against:
SD 27.3
Left Party 6.5
Mp (Greens) 5.0

Total: 38.8

[politicus]

The Russians already consider Sweden and Finland secret NATO members.

That's because we are secret NATO members. As you point out, it's not even that secret. It is only in name that we aren't members.

Yeah, that was Ries' point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In this interview Ries implies the opposite, that the job focused/union related right wing SAP is as strong as the "peachy" leftists with the current coalition with Mp a bigger stumbling block than overcoming their left wing (that is at least the tone in interview). But just wishful thinking from a professional defense analyst?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

But just wishful thinking from a professional defense analyst?

I would say so, yes.

[Gustaf]

Describing the Social Democrats as divided on NATO is ridiculous, imo. It's a fringe opinion and the wing that opposes NATO membership would all die of suicides and heart attacks if they changed the policy on it. Sweden Democrats are much more likely to become pro-NATO imo.

[The Lord Marbury]

Describing the Social Democrats as divided on NATO is ridiculous, imo. It's a fringe opinion and the wing that opposes NATO membership would all die of suicides and heart attacks if they changed the policy on it. Sweden Democrats are much more likely to become pro-NATO imo.

^Pretty much this. There is not much of a divide over NATO in the Social Democrats at all, what you have is a wing which is vehemently opposed to joining and another wing which is still opposed but more pragmatic and could reluctantly move towards membership if it for some reason became a political necessity.

In other news, a recent DN/Ipsos poll shows a major increase in the number of people who think we should take in more refugees than we already do compared to a poll taken in february.

Do you think that Sweden should take in more or less refugees than we do today?
Significantly more: 23% (+14)
Somewhat more: 21% (+4)
Neither more nor less: 20% (-13)
Don't know: 6% (+1)
Somewhat less: 14% (-2)
Significantly less: 16% (-4)

Are you concerned about....

...an increased number of refugees?
Yes: 39% (+9)
No: 57% (-11)

...xenophobia?
Yes: 71%
No: 27%

[DavidB.]

Wow.

[politicus]

The 27% that aren't concerned about xenophobia corresponds to the share that will vote for SD, so a very polarized population. It is a shame the poll didn't ask about intensity of positions. That would be interesting for Sweden.

[Gunnar Larsson]

In other news, a recent DN/Ipsos poll shows a major increase in the number of people who think we should take in more refugees than we already do compared to a poll taken in february.

Do you think that Sweden should take in more or less refugees than we do today?
Significantly more: 23% (+14)
Somewhat more: 21% (+4)
Neither more nor less: 20% (-13)
Don't know: 6% (+1)
Somewhat less: 14% (-2)
Significantly less: 16% (-4)

Are you concerned about....

...an increased number of refugees?
Yes: 39% (+9)
No: 57% (-11)

...xenophobia?
Yes: 71%
No: 27%

It is the first time to my knowledge that more people want to take more refugees rather than less and is obviously due to the current situation (the number of people that want increase the number of received refugees has increased from 17 to 44 % just since the beginning of September). However, it is also part of a long term trend. As can be seen in this article

http://www.svd.se/sifo-alan-kurdi-gjorde-svenskarna-positivare-till-flyktingar/om/flyktingkrisen-i-europa

(the graph below the header "FLYKTINGOPINIONEN" show the number of people that want to reduce the number of refugees , not reduce or dont have a strong opintion [light blow])

[Gunnar Larsson]

The 27% that aren't concerned about xenophobia corresponds to the share that will vote for SD, so a very polarized population. It is a shame the poll didn't ask about intensity of positions. That would be interesting for Sweden.

The number of SD voters differ between polls though, other polls have them at about 20, or in one case 16 %.

[politicus]

The 27% that aren't concerned about xenophobia corresponds to the share that will vote for SD, so a very polarized population. It is a shame the poll didn't ask about intensity of positions. That would be interesting for Sweden.

The number of SD voters differ between polls though, other polls have them at about 20, or in one case 16 %.

16% is clearly an outlier. I think the interesting thing here is that there is a relatively large minority which is outside the consensus. If you distrust the YouGov poll and others at that level lets just say the number is 21.5% (not unrealistic). In that case about 80% of the people saying xenophobia isn't a problem are voting for a nativist party. Given the relatively higher number of immigrants and that only a small number of them would vote SD (there is always some, but quite few) this equals at more than a quarter of old stock Swedes (dunno if you call them "old Swedes" the way we use new Danes/old Danes, but those who are ethnically Swedish). So you got a large share that are outside the consensus and my guess is they on average have stronger opinions about their position (= higher intensity) than the ones being more afraid of xenophobia than mass migration, which is the line the establishment supports and the media sustained social norm.

[Gunnar Larsson]

The 27% that aren't concerned about xenophobia corresponds to the share that will vote for SD, so a very polarized population. It is a shame the poll didn't ask about intensity of positions. That would be interesting for Sweden.

The number of SD voters differ between polls though, other polls have them at about 20, or in one case 16 %.

16% is clearly an outlier. I think the interesting thing here is that there is a relatively large minority which is outside the consensus. If you distrust the YouGov poll and others at that level lets just say the number is 21.5% (not unrealistic). In that case about 80% of the people saying xenophobia isn't a problem are voting for a nativist party. Given the relatively higher number of immigrants and that only a small number of them would vote SD (there is always some, but quite few) this equals at more than a quarter of old stock Swedes (dunno if you call them "old Swedes" the way we use new Danes/old Danes, but those who are ethnically Swedish). So you got a large share that are outside the consensus and my guess is they on average have stronger opinions about their position (= higher intensity) than the ones being more afraid of xenophobia than mass migration, which is the line the establishment supports and the media sustained social norm.

It make sense that SD voters are not that worried about xenophobia, yes. About the strength of opinions you can look at the number of people that want to change the number of refugees significantly. There are actually more people that want to increase it significantly. If you look at the ground you have a lot of people participating in stuff like "Refugees Welcome" etc.
I would say it work both ways. After the last election there was a lot of otherwise non political people expressing their horror at the number of possible neighbours voting SD.

[The Lord Marbury]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&artikel=6268163

Well well, this has all taken a very interesting turn. Things certainly aren't puppies and roses in the Sweden Democrats right now, I do wonder how much worse the situation is going to get.

[DavidB.]

Meanwhile, the Swedish government is on a roll when it comes to foreign policy. Rumor has it that Sweden is almost ready to recognize rebel group POLISARIO as the legitimate ruler over the Western Sahara. In response, Morocco blocked the opening of the first IKEA store in the North African country. It is funny that this reply is somewhat comparable to that of then Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman when Sweden decided to recognize "Palestine", except for the fact that Lieberman only joked about IKEA.

I doubt many Swedes care about the Western Sahara, but this might reinforce concerns about Sweden's supposedly overly ideological foreign policy ("like a bull in the china shop"), which clashes with the financial interests of multinationals from the country.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/morocco/11897980/Moroccan-authorities-block-IKEA-store-opening.html

[politicus]

Meanwhile, the Swedish government is on a roll when it comes to foreign policy. Rumor has it that Sweden is almost ready to recognize rebel group POLISARIO as the legitimate ruler over the Western Sahara. In response, Morocco blocked the opening of the first IKEA store in the North African country.

Freedom decision!

(if they stick to it and don't back down as they did with the Saudi-Arabia critique)

[DavidB.]

I don't really agree (I'm pro-Morocco), but regardless, I have to admit that the Swedish government is at least consequent. This is not about opportunism, it is a purely ideological decision, and even though it's coming from a pretty horrible ideology, it is still refreshing to see (and quite entertaining as well).

What's more, this will confuse anti-Israeli Moroccans in the Netherlands to no end. They will suddenly reply in exactly the same way as I did when Sweden recognized "Palestine", just as Morocco's reply ("lol IKEA lol") was similar to Israel's. Well, Moroccans and Jews are cousins after all. This might be an opportunity to get to understand each other better

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, I distinctly remember Lofven backing down on a promise to recognise the Armenian genocide, although I may have imagined that. Still, at least th government is trying, I guess.

[politicus]

I don't really agree (I'm pro-Morocco)

HP

Why do you support the occupation of small nations? Just to be consequent as a defender of Israeli occupation of Palestine?
(I am one as well, so I don't hold that against you, but I am strictly Israeli exceptionalism - to me Israel is a historical necessity due to extremely special circumstances, but not something that should form the basis for a general principle)