The Big Bad Swedish Politics & News Thread

[DavidB.]

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)

I have to say that I'm a bit torn on the issue, and that my view on the conflict has partly been influenced by things that really shouldn't matter. It's not as if I have figured out my opinion indefinitely, and in principle, I'm open to changing my opinion on this.

First of all, I am against the Israeli exceptionalism argument (even though its consequences "on the ground" are fine by me), because I don't think Israel's existence is (or should be) primarily based on the fact that Jews just needed a safe homeland. Our right to Israel does, in my opinion, derive from our status as an indigenous people to the area, not because we were persecuted everywhere.

In principle, I think indigenous peoples have a right to sovereignity in their homelands. I consider Jews indigenous to Israel, but it is quite hard to consider "Moroccans" (whether this even exists is another question, possibly also relevant to the topic, but I think one could say that there is a distinct Moroccan nation, even if divided in Arab and Berber tribes/ethnicities) indigenous to the Western Sahara, so through that way I could be consequent and defend Sahrawi independence while still favoring Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria (even if most people probably wouldn't buy that).

However, I went to Morocco on a political trip. I spoke with many people, also with Moroccan soldiers who were based in and near the Western Sahara (in a non-political setting, just randomly on a train), and this reminisced me of my Israeli friends in the army. Morocco is the country most friendly to Jews in the area (admittedly, the bar is extremely low, and I know all about the country's past) - I also visited the Jewish museum and a synagogue - and I immediately felt a connection with the culture, which seemed so alike to the Israeli culture I'm used to. Therefore, my view of the country and its culture has become very positive (even though of course I know about the downsides, such as the lack of freedom of press) and this has influenced my views on their conflict, even though ideally it probably shouldn't, because I'm not being consequent.

Additionally, Moroccans I know in the Netherlands tend to see Polisario as terrorists, something I can obviously sympathize with, especially if they are willing to see that "Palestinian" "independence movements" are, in reality, also terrorist. Given the fact that there are many Moroccans in the Netherlands, this also has domestic relevance for me. I was only half joking when I said that Swedish (or widespread) recognition of Sahrawi/Polisario independence could lead to more understanding between Moroccan and Jewish communities in the Netherlands. Of course this is highly unlikely, but one can dream, and if it would happen, it could influence our relations for the better. I feel very positive about certain aspects in Moroccan culture, which remind me of Israel and are similar to my Jewish "way of life", and I'm sure it could be the same the other way around, so I'd love this to become a two-way street, even if there's a snowball's chance in hell this will happen. However, this is another non-argument that shouldn't really be relevant.

In short: I generally don't support the "occupation of small nations", but my positive experience in Morocco and my hopes for the improvement of relations between Jews and Moroccans in the Netherlands nevertheless lead me to siding with Morocco on this issue. This is a position that "feels good" yet is philosophically highly unsatisfying, because both reasons shouldn't matter to the assessment of the situation in the Western Sahara. (Theoretically, another argument would be that Polisario doesn't really represent the Sahrawi people / is terrorist and thus the Western world shouldn't recognize it, but I haven't yet figured out for myself if this is really relevant and if I'm buying it myself.) However, since I haven't found a position that "feels better", I'll stick with it and be inconsequent for now.

(This is probably hugely off-topic, but I still wanted to reply to your post and I'd like to hear your reply to this - if you have any -, whether in this thread or somewhere else.)

[Helsinkian]

I see that Alliansen has broken off the "December agreement" between the two main blocks. First the Christian Democrats renounced it, and then the three other parties followed suit. http://www.nsd.se/nyheter/alliansen-do-har-fallit-9581843.aspx

New election coming?

[Diouf]

From what I have read, this time the Alliance parties will all submit individual budgets, and will only vote for their own, which means that the government's budget will still win. However, that is only for this year's budget negotiations. They haven't made any promises for the coming years yet, so if they, along with SD, vote through their own budget or remove central parts of the government budget, then Löfven might call an extraordinary election again at some point. But as the last time it happened, it is not that clear whether others than the SD want new elections, unless the Moderates and the Christian Democrats decide that they will cooperate with the SD. But it is probably a bit too early for that yet.
An alternative is that the Greens leave the government, and the Social Democrats form a government on their own which will then largely cooperate with the Alliance parties when getting legislation passed.

Understandable that the Christian Democrats wanted to do something to make a stand. The last poll had them all the way down at 1.9%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If the current polling numbers hold, the next elections will precipitate Sweden into a whole new era of its politics - and a rather terrifying one.

[The Lord Marbury]

The chance of there being a new election within the near future seems pretty slim at the moment so its hard to see how much this decision changes things. The Red-Green government will still get through its budget, and probably next year's too if the Alliance parties sticks to their plan of not presenting a common budget until the autumn of 2017 (what happens then is still a mystery though). I really have difficulty in fathoming the shortsighted thinking of the Christian Democrats (and the rest of the Alliance) with this since right now it seems quite unlikely that the Alliance will be larger than the Social Democrats and Sweden Democrats put together after the next election, which means that SD would only need to vote for the S budget to defeat an Alliance government budget. Basically the Alliance have just flushed their only chance at implementing economic policies without serious concessions to either the Social Democrats or Sweden Democrats down the toilet.

[ingemann]

I really have difficulty in fathoming the short sighted thinking of the Christian Democrats (and the rest of the Alliance) with this since right now it seems quite unlikely that the Alliance will be larger than the Social Democrats and Sweden Democrats put together, which means that SD would only need to vote for the S budget to defeat an Alliance government budget. Basically the Alliance have just flushed their only chance at implementing economic policies without serious concessions to either the Social Democrats or Sweden Democrats down the toilet.

The problem is that the moment the Alliance embraced this shortsighted anti-SD alliance, the  government got their hands around their ball, they can't back down without looking like they given into SD inhumane immigration/minority policies (tm) for "cynical political reason". They have by trying to keep SD outside any influence given the government and the left a free reign. Of course they couldn't have gotten away with establish their own government after last election, but the sane thing to do if you want to keep SD from having influence, would have been to push a coalition government, of course just like the existing situation, it wouldn't have kept SD from growing, but from a centre-right perspective it would have been the least disasterous choice after last election.

I personally find it hilarious that the Swedish government we usual see as rather naive have been so good at a Machiavellian power play to maximise their political power after what in reality was a rather brutal defeat of them last election. The Swedish centre-right on the other hand have shown themselves political incompetent.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I personally find it hilarious that the Swedish government we usual see as rather naive have been so good at a Machiavellian power play to maximise their political power after what in reality was a rather brutal defeat of them last election. The Swedish centre-right on the other hand have shown themselves political incompetent.

Have their economic policies since 2014 actually pushed Sweden to the left? Is there any major progressive reform they got to enact?

[ingemann]

I personally find it hilarious that the Swedish government we usual see as rather naive have been so good at a Machiavellian power play to maximise their political power after what in reality was a rather brutal defeat of them last election. The Swedish centre-right on the other hand have shown themselves political incompetent.

Have their economic policies since 2014 actually pushed Sweden to the left? Is there any major progressive reform they got to enact?

Whether they choose to push any progressive reforms through are secondary to the fact that they have set the centre-right checkmate. The Swedish government have also had to deal with external factors like EU financial demand, the international markets and the refugee crisis. So they can't just establish the Socialist Soviet Republic of Sweden (kidding kidding). But serious most countries are more limited by external factors than internal ones.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, but why should anyone care if the SDs got the policies they wanted, if said policies are more or less the same the Alliance would have enacted anyway?

[Diouf]

I really have difficulty in fathoming the short sighted thinking of the Christian Democrats (and the rest of the Alliance) with this since right now it seems quite unlikely that the Alliance will be larger than the Social Democrats and Sweden Democrats put together after the next election, which means that SD would only need to vote for the S budget to defeat an Alliance government budget. Basically the Alliance have just flushed their only chance at implementing economic policies without serious concessions to either the Social Democrats or Sweden Democrats down the toilet.

The Christian Democrats need something to differentiate themselves; with a decreasing share for the Alliance parties, there are fewer votes for them to loan as well. For some the 1.9 % opinion poll perhaps made them make up their mind completely. I would think that some of them counted on the other Alliance parties keeping the deal, which would probably have made the Christian Democrats surge quite markedly as they would have stood out. Now that surge might be less certain.
And as Ingemann says, the mistake was making the agreement, not tossing it again. At least they could have forced the Social Democrats to make deals with the Alliance instead of just allowing them to carry through their policies with the Greens and the Left Party. With small movements toward a tougher immigration and refugee policy from at least some of the Alliance parties, there is probably a bigger chance that they could get SD support for their budget. SD will probably never support a budget that is proposed by the Greens and the Left Party.

[The Lord Marbury]

But the Alliance in its current state would likely never ever seek support from the Sweden Democrats for its budgets, because that would lead to the break up of the Alliance. The Centre Party, as well as the Liberals and parts of the Moderates are just as opposed to the Sweden Democrats as the Social Democrats are. The Sweden Democrats are only interested in getting through their immigration policies, the rest doesn't really matter, and the Centre Party in particular would probably be more likely to work with the Social Democrats than SD, and that's saying something considering the current hate-on they seem to have towards Löfven & the gang.

[DavidB.]

OK, but why should anyone care if the SDs got the policies they wanted, if said policies are more or less the same the Alliance would have enacted anyway?

I agree that it doesn't matter so much in terms of (economic) policy, but it does matter in terms of who's in office: the center left has played the strategical "power politics" game rather smartly. Still, regarding policy, the fact that the center-right has basically accepted to implement an immigration policy based on the Greens' plans seems like a clear "progressive" victory. It is also doubtful that the Alliance would have been as ideological on foreign policy issues as the Red-Green government, and there's much talk about Sweden implementing a 6-hour workday, which could also be seen as "progressive reform".

[ingemann]

OK, but why should anyone care if the SDs got the policies they wanted, if said policies are more or less the same the Alliance would have enacted anyway?

Beside what DavidB said.

Because the Left (like in most of Europe) in Sweden mostly upkeep the existing economic status quo, while the centre-right are the ones who wish a radical reform of the structures of the Swedish economy. The sad fact is that socialist in much of Europe lack a vision from how to reform society, they have become conservative while the conservatives have become revolutionary with a clear vision of what they want.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Obviously, yes.

[Diouf]

But the Alliance in its current state would likely never ever seek support from the Sweden Democrats for its budgets, because that would lead to the break up of the Alliance. The Centre Party, as well as the Liberals and parts of the Moderates are just as opposed to the Sweden Democrats as the Social Democrats are. The Sweden Democrats are only interested in getting through their immigration policies, the rest doesn't really matter, and the Centre Party in particular would probably be more likely to work with the Social Democrats than SD, and that's saying something considering the current hate-on they seem to have Löfven & the gang.

I wasn't thinking of actively seeking support, but if some of the toughening of policies suggested by some of the Alliance parties are included, then it's hardly impossible that the SD would decide to support such a budget. Maybe a return somewhat to the situation before the last election.
With the current opinion polls, it would even work with a much smaller Alliance if the Centre Party (and the Liberals) don't want to join such an exercise. Moderates + SD only lack 3 seats from a majority in the latest Sentio poll. And if the Christian Democrats get a bounce and get above the threshold, their support will probably be enough.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Could the Centre Party realign to the left like in Norway?

[The Lord Marbury]

.... and there's much talk about Sweden implementing a 6-hour workday, which could also be seen as "progressive reform".

That talk about Sweden implementing a 6-hour workday has really been blown totally out of proportion. Of course I would personally be very supportive of such a thing, but what's happened here is really only that a few (mostly minor, aside from Toyota) private companies have moved towards a 6-hour workday and some Red-Green municipalities are also doing so on trial basis in elderly care. We are incredibly far away from ever implementing a 6-hour workday in terms of national legislation or even industry-wide collective agreements.

But the Alliance in its current state would likely never ever seek support from the Sweden Democrats for its budgets, because that would lead to the break up of the Alliance. The Centre Party, as well as the Liberals and parts of the Moderates are just as opposed to the Sweden Democrats as the Social Democrats are. The Sweden Democrats are only interested in getting through their immigration policies, the rest doesn't really matter, and the Centre Party in particular would probably be more likely to work with the Social Democrats than SD, and that's saying something considering the current hate-on they seem to have Löfven & the gang.

I wasn't thinking of actively seeking support, but if some of the toughening of policies suggested by some of the Alliance parties are included, then it's hardly impossible that the SD would decide to support such a budget. Maybe a return somewhat to the situation before the last election.
With the current opinion polls, it would even work with a much smaller Alliance if the Centre Party (and the Liberals) don't want to join such an exercise. Moderates + SD only lack 3 seats from a majority in the latest Sentio poll. And if the Christian Democrats get a bounce and get above the threshold, their support will probably be enough.

However most of those policies have to do with integration, and since SD are only talking about limiting immigration and don't actually have any integration policies themselves, I honestly don't see that happening.
In the case of either C or FP or both leaving the Alliance should such a situation arise, I'd expect that the "centrist" parties would see significant growth. Especially the Centre Party considering that they don't seem totally directionless at the moment (though there is such a thing as overconfidence which they need to be aware of). Remember that the reason M were so successful in the past 8-10 years is because the moved to the centre, being reliant on SD would shatter that image.

Could the Centre Party realign to the left like in Norway?

Seems unlikley since the Centre Party has become increasingly libertarian-ish in recent years and they seem to continue in that direction. If any Alliance party should switch sides (which I don't see happening within the near future), the Liberals would be the best bet.

[DavidB.]

.... and there's much talk about Sweden implementing a 6-hour workday, which could also be seen as "progressive reform".

That talk about Sweden implementing a 6-hour workday has really been blown totally out of proportion. Of course I would personally be very supportive of such a thing, but what's happened here is really only that a few (mostly minor, aside from Toyota) private companies have moved towards a 6-hour workday and some Red-Green municipalities are also doing so on trial basis in elderly care. We are incredibly far away from ever implementing a 6-hour workday in terms of national legislation or even industry-wide collective agreements.

Fair enough, thanks for explaining I didn't really know what this was about (that's also why I said "much talk about"), and Dutch media have a record of preferring sweeping stories about Sweden as a progressive paradise instead of talking about reality.

[politicus]

KD now also demands new elections, interesting if the Moderates will change their mind as well.

[Gustaf]

The deal was growing so unpopular I'm not surprised they abandoned it. Among my rightwing friends there was a lot of hate for the deal.

As has been stated already, entering the deal was the big mistake.

[DavidB.]

Does this open the door to right-wing cooperation with SD a little bit more? At this point, would most of the people who voted for a former Alliance party consider cooperation with SD acceptable?

[Gustaf]

Does this open the door to right-wing cooperation with SD a little bit more? At this point, would most of the people who voted for a former Alliance party consider cooperation with SD acceptable?

Not really. There is still quite some way before cooperation can be on the table.

The SD brand is toxic and they're not perceived, by themselves or others, as part of the right-wing. Which is different from say Progress Party in Norway which I think was even in the days before formal cooperation happened.

But sure we are slowly moving there.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I would agree with most of the things Gustaf and Marbury has said about this.

I don't think the decision by KD is that strange though. The Conservative faction in the Christian Democrats that voted down DÖ at their congress is the same faction that wants to implement stricter immigration policies, and wouldn't mind the centre-right to move closer to SD. I believe their idea is that the next centre-right government would be more strict on migration than a centre-left alternative. SD did threaten that they would kill every government that does not limit immigration, but if KD wish to create a government that limits immigration, it's the tactically smart thing as SD would probably not kill such an government. It will also benefit KD and they might gain Moderate voters who really hated DÖ.

It doesn't really change anything until 2017 either way. This year the Alliance parties are presenting separate budget proposals, and the plan is to do so next year as well. Meaning there is no reason for Löfvén to call an early election until the fall of 2017 at earliest.

Could the Centre Party realign to the left like in Norway?

Seems unlikley since the Centre Party has become increasingly libertarian-ish in recent years and they seem to continue in that direction. If any Alliance party should switch sides (which I don't see happening within the near future), the Liberals would be the best bet.

   

Nah! It should be noted that the Centre Party in Norway didn't really switch sides because of immigration foremost but because they're much more centre-left economically. If M and KD moves further right on immigration my guess is that we in C would act the same way as Venstre in Norway. Not back up a centre-left government, but neither taking part in a centre-right one siding with the centre-left on most social issues, but keeping to the right on economics.

As for the Liberals. Who knows. They might be the least coherent  and predictable party on this planet. Though I share Marbury's analysis that if there is one party that switches sides, it will be them.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/police-called-to-meeting-of-beard-fans-in-sweden-after-passer-by-confuses-them-with-isis-terrorists-a6690711.html

[DavidB.]

Only in Scandinavia.

(and Finland)