SWEDEN - September 14, 2014 - GUIDE and THREAD

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course they have.

Edit: QUESTION - if C or KD fall out of parliament will that basically be the end for them?

Like Lurker I think tactical votes will save them at the end of the day. C has a lot of resources (they used to be called the world's richest party, not sure if that is still true and it obviously depended on some weird metric) and a strong party organization so they could bounce back. They're also easier to redefine. The Christian Democrats are fixed in their image in the minds of many, they're a newer party which is significantly weaker in many ways. Also, they have alienated their base a lot with their abandonment of religious politics.

A core problem for KD is that the natural tack for them is to become a modern conservative party. They've made moves in this direction, like when Hägglund talked about "the people of reality" or when Ebba Busch talked about limiting the state's powers and being like a watchdog towards the government. But a large part of their supporters are religious conservatives who sort of want government intervention in both the economy and on social issues. So they're a bit trapped in contradiction.

[Enno von Loewenstern]

A core problem for KD is that the natural tack for them is to become a modern conservative party. They've made moves in this direction, like when Hägglund talked about "the people of reality" or when Ebba Busch talked about limiting the state's powers and being like a watchdog towards the government. But a large part of their supporters are religious conservatives who sort of want government intervention in both the economy and on social issues. So they're a bit trapped in contradiction.
[/quote]

Just as a hypothetical question: If KD disappears how would their voters split? Would be 2% Moderates, 1% Center and 1% SD a good guess?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just as a hypothetical question: If KD disappears how would their voters split? Would be 2% Moderates, 1% Center and 1% SD a good guess?

Interestingly enough there was a poll (Yougov) published this very morning on how people who voted for KD in '10 would vote today:

47,5% would still vote for KD
15,4% would either not vote or vote for a non-parliamentary party
11,5% would vote for SD
8,5% would vote for M
4,6% would vote for S
4,4% would vote for MP
4,1% would vote for FP
3,0% would vote for C
1,0% would vote for V

Not the same thing as what you're asking for, but it should give a hand-wave of how the party might split.
 

[FredLindq]

"Second party" for KD voters in 2010:
M 36%
FP 22%
C 20%
MP 10%
S 6%
SD 4%
V 2%

Probably most of the KD voters were really M, FP and C tactical votes. So for the centreright it would propbably not mean that much in votes if they disapperad.

[FredLindq]

"Second party" for C voters in 2010:
M 39%
FP 29%
MP 21%
KD 7%
S 5%
V 2%
SD 1%
Others 1% 


Probably most of the C-voters where really M and FP tactical votes. So for the centreright it would propbably not mean that m in votes if they disapperad, but more since MP is a so strong second party for C-voters.

[Tender Branson]

The Austrian newspaper "DiePresse" is reporting that the center-right government is calling for a massive increase in defense spending for the 2015 budget, because of fear of Russian aggression.

Sweden will also order a ton of new submarines and aircraft/fighter jets under these plans.

http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/1596888/Angst-vor-Russland_Schweden-rustet-wieder-auf

What impact will these plans have ? Could this strenghten the government ahead of the poll, or is it just a thing to divert attention from that scandal you mentioned in the previous pages ?

[Lurker]

A core problem for KD is that the natural tack for them is to become a modern conservative party. They've made moves in this direction, like when Hägglund talked about "the people of reality" or when Ebba Busch talked about limiting the state's powers and being like a watchdog towards the government. But a large part of their supporters are religious conservatives who sort of want government intervention in both the economy and on social issues. So they're a bit trapped in contradiction.

Wouldn't this make the completely superfluous though? A better way to stay relevant could be to adopt a profile more like their Norwegian sister party. Though the market for "social conservatism" in Sweden may be even smaller than here,  I suppose.

[Heimdal]

A core problem for KD is that the natural tack for them is to become a modern conservative party. They've made moves in this direction, like when Hägglund talked about "the people of reality" or when Ebba Busch talked about limiting the state's powers and being like a watchdog towards the government. But a large part of their supporters are religious conservatives who sort of want government intervention in both the economy and on social issues. So they're a bit trapped in contradiction.

Wouldn't this make the completely superfluous though? A better way to stay relevant could be to adopt a profile more like their Norwegian sister party. Though the market for "social conservatism" in Sweden may be even smaller than here,  I suppose.

I don’t think that would solve any of their problems. KrF is tied to a dying demographic (old religious people in rural areas). I think it is just a matter of time before they disappear.
Their challenge is probably the same as the one facing the Swedish Christian Democrats. They can’t turn into a normal Scandinavian conservative party. Then there will be no point in voting for them (as you mentioned). They can’t turn into a party opposing “islamization” and standing up for Christian values, since that part of the field is already occupied by SD/FrP.

I think it is fair to say that the Christian Democrats in Sweden and Norway will end up like their sister party in Denmark; as a marginalized party clinging on to a continually diminishing group of voters. 

[Gustaf]

My point though was that the role of a modern conservative party is vacant, so they could actually take it. And it would also, I think, fit quite well with the kind of voters they might attract.

[Lurker]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

[The Lord Marbury]

The Austrian newspaper "DiePresse" is reporting that the center-right government is calling for a massive increase in defense spending for the 2015 budget, because of fear of Russian aggression.

Sweden will also order a ton of new submarines and aircraft/fighter jets under these plans.

http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/1596888/Angst-vor-Russland_Schweden-rustet-wieder-auf

What impact will these plans have ? Could this strenghten the government ahead of the poll, or is it just a thing to divert attention from that scandal you mentioned in the previous pages ?

It's not what you could call a "massive increase". Only 1.2 billion SEK of this 5.5 billion increase is fully financed today and half of that comes from "new priorities" in current defense spending and the other half comes from an increase in fines for some types of criminal offenses! It's just ridiculous. And the fact is that this announcement comes two weeks after the government presented a 300 million cut in defense spending in the spring budget and a few weeks before the joint parliamentary defense committee will present their proposal for future Swedish defense politics. Why couldn't they wait for that to ensure that there was long-term crossparty support in this crucial political area? The answer is it's all about electoral politics here. And I doubt it'll strenghten the government much, generally I think people will see through this or not even pay attention to it.

[Enno von Loewenstern]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

It's not what you could call a "massive increase". Only 1.2 billion SEK of this 5.5 billion increase is fully financed today and half of that comes from "new priorities" in current defense spending and the other half comes from an increase in fines for some types of criminal offenses! It's just ridiculous. And the fact is that this announcement comes two weeks after the government presented a 300 million cut in defense spending in the spring budget and a few weeks before the joint parliamentary defense committee will present their proposal for future Swedish defense politics. Why couldn't they wait for that to ensure that there was long-term crossparty support in this crucial political area? The answer is it's all about electoral politics here. And I doubt it'll strenghten the government much, generally I think people will see through this or not even pay attention to it.

What? Politicians saying they'll do something purely for political gain? Surely not! I'm shocked and disgusted. Of course your party would never do that!

[DC Al Fine]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

[The Lord Marbury]

It's not what you could call a "massive increase". Only 1.2 billion SEK of this 5.5 billion increase is fully financed today and half of that comes from "new priorities" in current defense spending and the other half comes from an increase in fines for some types of criminal offenses! It's just ridiculous. And the fact is that this announcement comes two weeks after the government presented a 300 million cut in defense spending in the spring budget and a few weeks before the joint parliamentary defense committee will present their proposal for future Swedish defense politics. Why couldn't they wait for that to ensure that there was long-term crossparty support in this crucial political area? The answer is it's all about electoral politics here. And I doubt it'll strenghten the government much, generally I think people will see through this or not even pay attention to it.

What? Politicians saying they'll do something purely for political gain? Surely not! I'm shocked and disgusted. Of course your party would never do that!

Not say my party doesn't do that kind of stuff either, just saying one could be honest when having a discussion about these things.

[Gustaf]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

You seem to assume that Moderaterna is a conservative party these days...

I mean taking actual conservative positions. Like, cutting taxes and opposing a large welfare state. Wanting a strong defence. Being a little bit patriotic, perhaps favouring some restrictions on immigration.

Moderaterna is doing none of that at the moment, which is why another party could take it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

You seem to assume that Moderaterna is a conservative party these days...

I mean taking actual conservative positions. Like, cutting taxes and opposing a large welfare state. Wanting a strong defence. Being a little bit patriotic, perhaps favouring some restrictions on immigration.

Moderaterna is doing none of that at the moment, which is why another party could take it.

But isn't M's centrist turn a consequence of the fact that such a "conservative" party would just never manage to become electorally competitive? Pre-2006 electoral history would point in that direction.

[njwes]

An idea stolen from the German politics thread just because I think it's fun, here's the number of Facebook likes by party:

SD: 75,360
Moderates: 22,360
FP: 7,440
C: 8,150
KD: 5,320
SAP: 55,460
V: 22,390
Greens: 26,720

and just to be inclusive,

Pirates: 81,130


#s rounded slightly for aesthetics.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

M represents The Man therefore is obviously the principle conservative party of record

[Gustaf]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

You seem to assume that Moderaterna is a conservative party these days...

I mean taking actual conservative positions. Like, cutting taxes and opposing a large welfare state. Wanting a strong defence. Being a little bit patriotic, perhaps favouring some restrictions on immigration.

Moderaterna is doing none of that at the moment, which is why another party could take it.

But isn't M's centrist turn a consequence of the fact that such a "conservative" party would just never manage to become electorally competitive? Pre-2006 electoral history would point in that direction.

You're taking the wrong attitude. Pre 2006-M usually raked in about 20% of the vote. I think KD would be pretty happy with half of that.

[Gustaf]

M represents The Man therefore is obviously the principle conservative party of record

I know what you're getting at, but I think KD when they did well appealed to a lot of typical M-voters.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

You seem to assume that Moderaterna is a conservative party these days...

I mean taking actual conservative positions. Like, cutting taxes and opposing a large welfare state. Wanting a strong defence. Being a little bit patriotic, perhaps favouring some restrictions on immigration.

Moderaterna is doing none of that at the moment, which is why another party could take it.

But isn't M's centrist turn a consequence of the fact that such a "conservative" party would just never manage to become electorally competitive? Pre-2006 electoral history would point in that direction.

You're taking the wrong attitude. Pre 2006-M usually raked in about 20% of the vote. I think KD would be pretty happy with half of that.

Well, they certainly could get up to 20% (that's what the FrP did in Norway, after all), but even if they did, there's no way they'd get enough support from other parties to lead a government or to push economic policy massively to the right. Thank God Sweden doesn't have a two-party system. In order to really hold power for a significant amount of time, you need to get at least as centrist as M did.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The National Democrats dissolve

The minor far-right party, the National Democrats, has dissolved, ending it's 13 year existence. That were the news published in a letter by party leader Marc Abrahamsson on the party's own website today. The party has suffered from crisis since 2010 by losing support to the Sweden Democrats, and to the even more far-right The Swedes' Party (SvP). Abrahamsson himself claims he'll now support SD in the up-coming elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good to see them go. Unfortunately, most of their remaining few supporters will probably flock to the even worse SvP.

[Gustaf]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

You seem to assume that Moderaterna is a conservative party these days...

I mean taking actual conservative positions. Like, cutting taxes and opposing a large welfare state. Wanting a strong defence. Being a little bit patriotic, perhaps favouring some restrictions on immigration.

Moderaterna is doing none of that at the moment, which is why another party could take it.

But isn't M's centrist turn a consequence of the fact that such a "conservative" party would just never manage to become electorally competitive? Pre-2006 electoral history would point in that direction.

You're taking the wrong attitude. Pre 2006-M usually raked in about 20% of the vote. I think KD would be pretty happy with half of that.

Well, they certainly could get up to 20% (that's what the FrP did in Norway, after all), but even if they did, there's no way they'd get enough support from other parties to lead a government or to push economic policy massively to the right. Thank God Sweden doesn't have a two-party system. In order to really hold power for a significant amount of time, you need to get at least as centrist as M did.

I'm not sure I understand your point. It isn't as if KD is leading a government at the moment either?

My point is that by pushing to the right they could become a strong junior coalition partner in a centre-right alliance as opposed to a weak one like they are now. Disgruntled M voters could vote for them to drag the government rightwards.

[DC Al Fine]

Sorry if I sound pedantic here, but what would "modern conservative" entail, as you see it? I.e., comparable to what foreign parties? Wouldn't they still overlap quite a lot with Moderaterna?

Same question.

You seem to assume that Moderaterna is a conservative party these days...

I mean taking actual conservative positions. Like, cutting taxes and opposing a large welfare state. Wanting a strong defence. Being a little bit patriotic, perhaps favouring some restrictions on immigration.

Moderaterna is doing none of that at the moment, which is why another party could take it.

But isn't M's centrist turn a consequence of the fact that such a "conservative" party would just never manage to become electorally competitive? Pre-2006 electoral history would point in that direction.

You're taking the wrong attitude. Pre 2006-M usually raked in about 20% of the vote. I think KD would be pretty happy with half of that.

Well, they certainly could get up to 20% (that's what the FrP did in Norway, after all), but even if they did, there's no way they'd get enough support from other parties to lead a government or to push economic policy massively to the right. Thank God Sweden doesn't have a two-party system. In order to really hold power for a significant amount of time, you need to get at least as centrist as M did.

I'm not sure I understand your point. It isn't as if KD is leading a government at the moment either?

My point is that by pushing to the right they could become a strong junior coalition partner in a centre-right alliance as opposed to a weak one like they are now. Disgruntled M voters could vote for them to drag the government rightwards.

That's an interesting idea. As you said earlier, SD seems to be occupying that portion of the spectrum so there's no space for them to expand