SWEDEN - September 14, 2014 - GUIDE and THREAD

[Gustaf]

It's still political suicide to cooperate with SD in any way so it won't happen after this election. I agree that an outcome where Red-Green wins a plurality but fall short of a majority seems like the most realistic outcome at this point.

There has been a lot of speculation on what will happen then. I personally think a pure Red-Green coalition government would be untenable and is unlikely. There has been speculation on an S-MP-FP coalition (I guess similar to the German traffic light concept ) but I remain skeptical.

Right now I think S-MP is the most likely result out of that, but MP switching to the right can also not be ruled out.

[Gustaf]

I honestly find it a bit weird that the government is doing as badly as they are. Yes, they're boring and have no ideas etc. But they did largely implement the platform they got elected on and while the economy isn't great that's mostly due to the financial crisis, Sweden is doing ok in an international perspective.

I'm not thrilled by them and I think the Social Democrats have a good lineup but the landslide loss confuses me, to be honest.

[Gustaf]

I honestly find it a bit weird that the government is doing as badly as they are. Yes, they're boring and have no ideas etc. But they did largely implement the platform they got elected on and while the economy isn't great that's mostly due to the financial crisis, Sweden is doing ok in an international perspective.

I'm not thrilled by them and I think the Social Democrats have a good lineup but the landslide loss confuses me, to be honest.

I don't agree with you that it's very surprising because in an election a lot of focus tends to be placed on what the parties want to do in the next term rather than what they've done, and the Alliance haven't exactly laid out a plan full of fresh and new exciting ideas.
Tax cuts just ain't what they used to be and now polling shows that voters are far more concerned with welfare, education and employment issues where the oppositions agenda is far more popular because they've actually spent time on building up voter confidence now. Gone are the days when the Alliance could just sit back wait for opposition incompetence and Reinfeldt & Borgs personal popularity to carry them to victory.

That's true, but I'm not clear on what the grand ideas of the opposition are on these issues either?

Problems with employment, welfare and education were present and worsening under the left as well as far as I remember.

The loss I get, but this total meltdown I do find a bit surprising.

[Gustaf]

I honestly find it a bit weird that the government is doing as badly as they are. Yes, they're boring and have no ideas etc. But they did largely implement the platform they got elected on and while the economy isn't great that's mostly due to the financial crisis, Sweden is doing ok in an international perspective.

I'm not thrilled by them and I think the Social Democrats have a good lineup but the landslide loss confuses me, to be honest.

I don't agree with you that it's very surprising because in an election a lot of focus tends to be placed on what the parties want to do in the next term rather than what they've done, and the Alliance haven't exactly laid out a plan full of fresh and new exciting ideas.
Tax cuts just ain't what they used to be and now polling shows that voters are far more concerned with welfare, education and employment issues where the oppositions agenda is far more popular because they've actually spent time on building up voter confidence now. Gone are the days when the Alliance could just sit back wait for opposition incompetence and Reinfeldt & Borgs personal popularity to carry them to victory.

That's true, but I'm not clear on what the grand ideas of the opposition are on these issues either?

Problems with employment, welfare and education were present and worsening under the left as well as far as I remember.

The loss I get, but this total meltdown I do find a bit surprising.

Well talking about limiting (or completely banning) profiteering in welfare is a popular one, with little doubt of it being one of the main reasons why the Left Party has been going so strong lately. Then there's also reducing class sizes in schools (as recently copied by the Alliance), increased wages for teachers, larger intake of students at the universities, getting rid of involuntary part-time in welfare professions, etc.

In regards to employment you have the 90-day guarantee for youth unemployed and the education contract which enables young people without a gymnasium-level education to combine work and education.
You've also got improved unemployment insurance which in addition to not forcing people into poverty or relying on relatives it maintains consumption and gives the economy a nice boost as research shows that less well off individuals are more likely to spend extra money than save it. Various necessary infrastructure investments such as the North Bothnia Line will also result in more jobs and growth.

Indeed however I at least believe that a lot of the problems with education and welfare under S had their roots in the 1990s economic crisis and resulting cutbacks, the institution of New Public Management in the public sphere, free school choice and resulting segregation, the transfer of education responsibilities to the municipalities (Göran Persson's worst move ever!) and so forth. It's also worth noting that unemployment had in fact been continually dropping for several straight months before the Alliance took power.

And I dunno, some people would find it confusing that the Alliance managed to take power in '06 when the economy was booming and the unemployment was relatively low and going even lower...

Ok, but banning profits in the welfare sector has been clearly rejected by the SAP, right? So I can see why it would gain V votes from SAP, but not why it would cause movement across the centre. Especially since the government has been signalling that they're shifting on the issue as well.

The rest of the stuff in your first paragraph is old-school ideas, several of which are a bit untenable (like, sure if we could fix schools by just throwing a little money at them we already would have and we also wouldn't be beaten by tons of countries with smaller class sizes). I guess my point is that none of it sounds like new reasons to vote left - if those were your ideas I'd have expected you to never vote for the current government anyway. Same goes for unemployment insurance.

It strikes me as a mix of reversals of government policies and tiny tinkerings of the same kind that they were unsuccessfully experimenting with in their time in power.

It's a fair point that it was surprising for the opposition to win in 2006, but in that case  there were several dramatic policy changes in the opposition. I can imagine not wanting to vote for them in 2002 but then changing their mind due to all these changes.

But maybe this is getting too off-topic.  

[Gustaf]

I honestly find it a bit weird that the government is doing as badly as they are. Yes, they're boring and have no ideas etc. But they did largely implement the platform they got elected on and while the economy isn't great that's mostly due to the financial crisis, Sweden is doing ok in an international perspective.

I'm not thrilled by them and I think the Social Democrats have a good lineup but the landslide loss confuses me, to be honest.

I don't agree with you that it's very surprising because in an election a lot of focus tends to be placed on what the parties want to do in the next term rather than what they've done, and the Alliance haven't exactly laid out a plan full of fresh and new exciting ideas.
Tax cuts just ain't what they used to be and now polling shows that voters are far more concerned with welfare, education and employment issues where the oppositions agenda is far more popular because they've actually spent time on building up voter confidence now. Gone are the days when the Alliance could just sit back wait for opposition incompetence and Reinfeldt & Borgs personal popularity to carry them to victory.

That's true, but I'm not clear on what the grand ideas of the opposition are on these issues either?

Problems with employment, welfare and education were present and worsening under the left as well as far as I remember.

The loss I get, but this total meltdown I do find a bit surprising.

Well talking about limiting (or completely banning) profiteering in welfare is a popular one, with little doubt of it being one of the main reasons why the Left Party has been going so strong lately. Then there's also reducing class sizes in schools (as recently copied by the Alliance), increased wages for teachers, larger intake of students at the universities, getting rid of involuntary part-time in welfare professions, etc.

In regards to employment you have the 90-day guarantee for youth unemployed and the education contract which enables young people without a gymnasium-level education to combine work and education.
You've also got improved unemployment insurance which in addition to not forcing people into poverty or relying on relatives it maintains consumption and gives the economy a nice boost as research shows that less well off individuals are more likely to spend extra money than save it. Various necessary infrastructure investments such as the North Bothnia Line will also result in more jobs and growth.

Indeed however I at least believe that a lot of the problems with education and welfare under S had their roots in the 1990s economic crisis and resulting cutbacks, the institution of New Public Management in the public sphere, free school choice and resulting segregation, the transfer of education responsibilities to the municipalities (Göran Persson's worst move ever!) and so forth. It's also worth noting that unemployment had in fact been continually dropping for several straight months before the Alliance took power.

And I dunno, some people would find it confusing that the Alliance managed to take power in '06 when the economy was booming and the unemployment was relatively low and going even lower...

Ok, but banning profits in the welfare sector has been clearly rejected by the SAP, right? So I can see why it would gain V votes from SAP, but not why it would cause movement across the centre. Especially since the government has been signalling that they're shifting on the issue as well.

The rest of the stuff in your first paragraph is old-school ideas, several of which are a bit untenable (like, sure if we could fix schools by just throwing a little money at them we already would have and we also wouldn't be beaten by tons of countries with smaller class sizes). I guess my point is that none of it sounds like new reasons to vote left - if those were your ideas I'd have expected you to never vote for the current government anyway. Same goes for unemployment insurance.

It strikes me as a mix of reversals of government policies and tiny tinkerings of the same kind that they were unsuccessfully experimenting with in their time in power.

It's a fair point that it was surprising for the opposition to win in 2006, but in that case  there were several dramatic policy changes in the opposition. I can imagine not wanting to vote for them in 2002 but then changing their mind due to all these changes.

But maybe this is getting too off-topic.  

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they've clearly said no, they just haven't said yes either. They've obviously taken a very unclear position as to minimize conflict which I think is a big mistake since polling shows that even a majority of Alliance voters oppose tax funded enterprise in the welfare sector taking out profits. That's also the reason why V aren't just taking voters from S or MP (though most of their new support comes from there) but from all the rightwing parties to certain degrees as well. You also see how former C (and to some degree KD) voters in rural areas are moving over to support V (and also SAP) after they're started to feel the effects of privatizations and declining service.

I agree that you can't fix schools by just throwing money at them and that's clearly not the only thing we want to do. I don't really agree that these are just old ideas brought up again, however sometimes you don't need completely new ideas to win over voters as the Alliance's victory in '06 showed, just some removal of the most controversial bits and communicating your message better.

I also don't necessarily think that voters rejected the left because they disagreed with what they were proposing because polling showed in 2010 that on the actual issues the voters had in fact moved further to the left. Although more of them chose to identify as rightwing and with the Alliance despite this, hinting that the left had a much larger problem with how they communicated their message rather than what they were actually proposing.

It's also about what voters care about at the time of the election. Last time the economic issues were highly prioritized which enabled the Alliance to focus on what was (and still is, to a lesser degree) their strongest issue and present an image of there being no real conflict to speak of in welfare issues, making things very difficult for the opposition. Now were seeing the opposite when welfare, education and jobs issues are placed much higher up on the agenda which is benefitial for the opposition.

Well this is an election thread so I don't think discussing the parties and their policies are off-topic or irrelevant at this time...

I know some left-wingers like to think that the right only changed their rhetoric to win in 2006, but personally I don't think that holds up at all. There were a number of dramatic and real changes that brought about that election victory and for better or worse and in a number of ways I think those changes will impact society and politics for a long time to come. I don't see the current opposition line being anything close to that dramatic in nature.

What I meant was that I feel this is veering into a debate on who one should vote for rather than what people will vote for. I'm not passing the blame on that, but I think it's getting close to something that should be in a different thread, that's all!

[Gustaf]

So, the government just announced that they are scrapping the planned cuts in student grants...

Which is okay. Annie Lööf calling it "good and important" is not okay.

Regarding the policy discussion, policy is part of the reason but there's definitely more style than substance behind the government's deficit and the gap will definitely close to single digits by the summer.

Yeah, the government has become self-parody at this point. It'll be interesting to see if it works though. I think they hope that sufficient fine-tuning  can bring them up to speed by the time of the election.

I agree (obviously) that it should become closer. The big question of this election is really whether we get Red-Green majority or not. If not, I suspect there will be some chaos. And with SD at around 10% they do need a landslide win to clinch it.

[Gustaf]

Having a unified opposition platform was new, as was the nature of the tax-cuts (being weighted more towards lower-income groups). Not cutting welfare spending, not making any changes in labour law were also big changes. I think taken together that constituted a pretty big shift in actual policy, even if not everything changed.

The change in style also mattered, of course.

It's amusing to see SD attack Bildt about Svoboda. The far-right is going bananas over it, having no idea what to think about the whole issue.

[Gustaf]

So to sum up this very long discussion, a centre-right voter from Stockholm Business School doesn't understand why the government is unpopular and a centre-left voter from a place that votes 20 percentage points more left than the country as a whole doesn't think there's anything people find controversial about the Swedish left's policy position... C'mon really.


Anyway I also expect the government to recover somewhat (I would be shocked if they didn't get above 40% in the end) but how much they recover is really a question on wether the government will keep coming with proposal that piss people off (student-grants) and on wether the opposition will go into clown mode this time as well with subway butlers, breast pumps, and banning construction off new malls.     

Also it's not for certain that C and Kd will recover enough even if the Alliance as a whole does so.


 

I'm really not as right-wing (nor is my social environment) as you seem to think.

This is not a reflection on my personal values or with people I talk to. I don't entirely get, I suppose, why so many people were happy to vote for them last time but aren't now since I don't see that much having changed. That isn't to say I don't understand why people voted left last time - I have plenty of close friends who did.

[Gustaf]

I don't get how you're calculating stuff in that graph. What are you counting as part of the coalitions?

[Gustaf]

Thanks Lurker!

I don't get how you're calculating stuff in that graph. What are you counting as part of the coalitions?

Red = Left/Communists + SAP + Greens

Blue = Moderates + KDs + Liberals + Centre

I know these coalitions haven't always been stable through time, but I thought it would only make things more confusing to include different parties at different times. And yeah, I should have said bloc.

Oh, ok. So why not as share of voters then? This seems like an unnecessary deflation of the numbers to me.

[Gustaf]

Thanks Lurker!

I don't get how you're calculating stuff in that graph. What are you counting as part of the coalitions?

Red = Left/Communists + SAP + Greens

Blue = Moderates + KDs + Liberals + Centre

I know these coalitions haven't always been stable through time, but I thought it would only make things more confusing to include different parties at different times. And yeah, I should have said bloc.

Oh, ok. So why not as share of voters then? This seems like an unnecessary deflation of the numbers to me.

Because the red and blue lines as % of valid votes largely mirror each other, since for most of Sweden's history no party outside of the blocs garnered a significant amount of support. I thought this version of the graph would add a lot of information without losing any.

Admittedly, electoral results that factor in abstention are a pet issue to me, and I know most people don't find them that interesting. Anyway I also have the other version of the graph, I can upload it too if you're interested.

Fair enough. I guess it just looks funny to me then. The other version would be cool, yeah.

It may be noted that these coalitions are far from permanent. So for example, even though the right won in 1956, C was in coalition with S at the time and refused to form a new government even after they left that coalition in 1957.

[Gustaf]

What's your populist far-right thing in the 30s? Is is the Commie-turned-Nazi grouping?

Also, to those who are unaware, that colour is for New Democracy in the early 90s and for the Sweden Democrats in the 00s even though those parties are in many ways very, very different beasts.

[Gustaf]

Why was Centre the big party of the right in the 70's & why did the moderates overtake them?

I wouldn't say the Moderates moderated during that era. If anything, their rhetoric tacked to the right during the 70s and 80s as far as I know.

The Centre party was a rural party based on farmer interests originally. In the early 70s that became linked with the green wave and boosted them. Over time as Sweden urbanized their base just disappeared. They also were viewed as most likely to jump in bed with S and that tends to get punished by  centre-right voters.

[Gustaf]

Political superstar Margot Wallström, a former Social Affairs Minister and EU Commissioner who was approached for the Social Democratic party leadership several times but said no at every turn has today come out and said that she's interested in making a return to Swedish politics. A bit of a boon for Löfven who's frontbench isn't exactly filled to the brim with people who have previous cabinet-level experience. Wallström mentioned immigration and integration issues as something that was of interest to her, but IMO she would make a fantastic Minister of Foreign Affairs. With her 10 years as EU Commissioner and 2 years of working for the UN she is definitely the opposition candidate for the position with the most gravitas.

Well unless Deputy UN Secretary-General Jan Eliasson is interested of course (unlikely), but he may be seen as too old for the job anyways.

Jan Eliasson briefly held the post. I don't like Wallström myself (never understood her popularity) and I think her appeal is weaker now than back when people wanted her as leader. Still commands a lot of support though and one of few experienced SAP politicians who isn't tainted by previous failures or perceived as a has-been. So good news for them in that sense.

[Gustaf]

 As for your second question it depends which part of the public you ask. Some Hipster area in Stockholm, they're considered worse than Hitler himself, while in rural Skåne, they're not seen as especially controversial.
But they've gotten rid of their most openly racist policies and the Nazis, who've moved on to the National Democrats (ND) and The Swedes' Party (SvP)

That is very interesting. I guess that SD have moved toward the center (to some extent at least), which has enabled them to gain far more voters than other rightwing populist parties in Sweden. Their level of support as of today resembles FrP and Dansk Folkeparti.

Could you explain what sorts of parties the National Democrats and The Swedes Party are? Are they just a more radical/extreme version of the SD?

The National Democrats are openly racist, they oppose race-mixing and wants Sweden to return to some idyllic nineteenth century farmer society. They're complete nutjobs.

However, they are nowhere near as scary as SvP which is a Nazi party. SvP used to be called National Socialist Front when I was in high school. They're exactly what that sounds like.

All of the non-SD far-right groups are very tiny fringe groups. And all totally insane. SD has done a good job of cleaning up their image, which is why they get so much support now.

The Swedish mainstream right is not at a place where they can cooperate with SD and if they did a large chunk of their support would join the left. I know plenty of activists for the government who would prefer a left-wing government over one with SD in it. Long term I guess we will go down the Danish/Norwegian route though.

[Gustaf]

I am as of yet undecided. I know I won't vote SD, V or FP but anything else is still possible.

[Gustaf]

 As for your second question it depends which part of the public you ask. Some Hipster area in Stockholm, they're considered worse than Hitler himself, while in rural Skåne, they're not seen as especially controversial.
But they've gotten rid of their most openly racist policies and the Nazis, who've moved on to the National Democrats (ND) and The Swedes' Party (SvP)

That is very interesting. I guess that SD have moved toward the center (to some extent at least), which has enabled them to gain far more voters than other rightwing populist parties in Sweden. Their level of support as of today resembles FrP and Dansk Folkeparti.

Could you explain what sorts of parties the National Democrats and The Swedes Party are? Are they just a more radical/extreme version of the SD?

The National Democrats are openly racist, they oppose race-mixing and wants Sweden to return to some idyllic nineteenth century farmer society. They're complete nutjobs.

However, they are nowhere near as scary as SvP which is a Nazi party. SvP used to be called National Socialist Front when I was in high school. They're exactly what that sounds like.

All of the non-SD far-right groups are very tiny fringe groups. And all totally insane. SD has done a good job of cleaning up their image, which is why they get so much support now.

The Swedish mainstream right is not at a place where they can cooperate with SD and if they did a large chunk of their support would join the left. I know plenty of activists for the government who would prefer a left-wing government over one with SD in it. Long term I guess we will go down the Danish/Norwegian route though.

That must be a blessing for the SD. I think a lot of Swedes would want to vote for a party that wants to restrict immigration to Sweden.  However, they don’t want to vote for a party whose members idolize the Third Reich. I think the SD leadership is happy that those people have disappeared.

In a way I am not surprised that SD and the Moderates are having a hard time finding together. My view of the SD is that the party is mostly about restricting immigration, and preserving different sorts of social services. Correct me if I am wrong, but it appears like tax cuts and privatization of public services isn’t a big priority for them. I don’t know that much about Swedish politics, but the Moderates at least used to campaign on tax cuts and privatization of public services. So immigration probably isn’t the only obstacle.

Oh, it's no coincidence, SD has been purging these people for the last decade and moderating their image. They do have an MP who every now and then indicates support for Nazi groupings though.

M no longer stands for large tax-cuts or privatizations, but it is true SD is still to their left on economics. A large part of M's liberal, urban middle-class voters could never support SD though. Most young party activists in M are some shade of libertarian and those guys loathe SD every bit as much as the left does. Also, Reinfeldt seems to have something of a personal beef with them. He's gone out of his way to mark his distance to SD.

[Gustaf]

The whole trick in Gustaf is his aversion of EU compared to his context.

Oh right, of course. Didn't think of that.

Well, there is that, but actually even apart from that I'm not an FP person, really. They're our version of Liberal Democrats in the UK.

Essentially, you have to remember that the Swedish Conservatives these days really don't have any of the typical conservative party baggage (no homophobia, no racism, no nationalism, no love for defense, etc, etc).

Given that, I prefer them to the smug middle-class social engineering attitudes of FP. Essentially, if I vote government my natural choice would be M because the others have sort of become joke parties by now. But I could vote C or KD to support them getting above 4% threshold. I could also see a scenario where I vote opposition for either S or MP. But I can't see a scenario where FP would be the top choice.

[Gustaf]

I am as of yet undecided. I know I won't vote SD, V or FP but anything else is still possible.

That's verging on gustaf.txt

Haha, really?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.