Swedish election, 2018: Political Impasse, Löfven loses confidence vote

[Diouf]

The court case in the link has dominated coverage in the last week. Two of the three jury members decided not to sentence  a muslim man for spousal violence because he 'comes from a better family than her' and because she was deemed untrustworthy due to going to the police instead of trying to solve the case with his family. The judge and the third jury members wanted him to be sentenced, but with a 2-2 result, there is no conviction.
Both jury members had a immigration background and were appointed by the Centre Party as active members in local politics. One of the two has clearly stated that she thinks Swedish law should allow for Sharia Law rulings. After the intense media attention, both persons have been thrown out of the party, but it is a very poor look for the Centre Party.


 https://www.thelocal.se/20180305/controversial-assault-ruling-sparks-debate-in-sweden-thelocal

[Diouf]

It looks like without SD support, Alliance can't get enough to form a government, and with SD support, some Alliance parties would leave. Are their chances of forming a government pretty much non-existent at the moment?

The most recent Sentio poll has SD on 23%, Moderates on 19.5% and KD on 4.8%. With the Liberals and FI below the threshold, that is enough for a majority. So it is possible that there can be a right-wing majority, that is not dependent on the two pro-immigration parties. I don't know exactly how strong the Reinfeldt/Bildt etc. wing is within the Moderates, but with a result like the Sentio poll, there should be a decent possibility of a M-KD government with SD support.

[Diouf]

YouGov poll for June

[Diouf]

I actually wonder whether the Greens could lose some potential tactical voting if the media start to focus a lot on Sweden Democrats potentially being the biggest party. Maybe some left-wingers will vote for the Social Democrats just to avoid that (even though it will probably have no effect on government formation whether Sweden Democrats are 1st or 2nd).

[Diouf]

I actually wonder whether the Greens could lose some potential tactical voting if the media start to focus a lot on Sweden Democrats potentially being the biggest party. Maybe some left-wingers will vote for the Social Democrats just to avoid that (even though it will probably have no effect on government formation whether Sweden Democrats are 1st or 2nd).

Is a Social Democrat-Sweden Democrat government possible? In that case it would have a big effect as it would determine who the next PM of Sweden is.

A far right PM in Sweden would be a huge thing while a centre-left one is no problem. Alternatively, same thing goes with the Moderates.

Even if the Sweden Democrats were to be a part of a government, I am certain they would not lead it, not matter whether they are the largest party or not.

[Diouf]

Less than convincing effort from Isabella Lövin in SVT's program with Miljöpartiet. The moderators have had to repeat questions several times, because Lövin talks in boring platitudes without answering questions. She is completely without charisma, and doesn't even seem that convincing on policy details.

[Diouf]

So let's get this straight one more time. The impression that I had, but I'm not sure if this is correct, is that if M+SD+KD+L = >50% of seats, an M minority government could be formed, sustained from the outside by L, KD and SD (in the sense that they wouldn't vote against the budget), and that M would take into account the policy preferences of these other parties. I realize that L and SD don't exactly like each other, but they don't have to be in a coalition with each other, they just need to tolerate the M govt.

If, however, these parties do not receive a majority... what happens? Does S get the initiative to form a government? How would that even work, if they would have to rely on both C and V? I realize this is unchartered territory, but I'm just thinking of the most likely course of action. How do Swedish analysts view this?

Also still astounded at the voting method in Sweden. Does nobody raise any environmental concerns with printing all these party-based ballots that are not going to be used? I really don't understand why they don't just have one ballot and let people tick a box to vote. I'm glad we do not use this system in the Netherlands - it would require half a rainforest to print the ballots with our number of parties.

So far, the Liberals are as clear as the Centre Party in rejecting a government based in anyway on the SD. The Moderates and Christian Democrats are slightly less hostile. Kristersson says the Moderates won't govern with or negotiate with Sweden Democrats, so he doesn't reject governing on their support. Busch Thor said the Christian Democrats could talk to Sweden Democrats, but not negotiate with them until the party was cleaned up (in terms of MPs deemed over the line). So theoretically a M-KD government supported by SD could be an option. But even in Sentio and YouGov polls, this majority rarely materializes. And even if it did, many in M and KD would still much prefer to go for some kind of Alliance government or even a cross-bloc government.

Most if not all of the Swedish parties would prefer to keep on pretending that the Sweden Democrats does not exist, and then let the biggest bloc between the Red-Greens and the Alliance govern, while the other bloc pretends to be in opposition. However, to their horror, the Alliance parties, KD and M in particular, realized that this was not really popular among members or voters. In the reverse scenario, Kristersson talks like he hopes that an Alliance government could rely on the Red Bloc not joining with SD to vote down his government. It is probably possible this could happen, but with Social Democrats putting all their focus on rejecting tax cuts and increasing welfare spending, they could hardly let an Allianse goverment rule without ensuring its wings were completely clipped. So there is probably a need for a more formalized cooperation or even coalition across the blocs this time. The Liberals talk positively about allowing a S-M government to be put in place. These three parties are close to a majority in the polling average and could perhaps be allowed by one additional small party. The distance between the two big parties economically seem so big that such a coalition would be painful.

You can see the most likely government according to Unibet below. Due to the economic difference between the two blocs, I think direct government cooperation across the blocs is less likely than (parts of) one bloc allowing the other bloc to govern in a very restricted way. What that restricted government would look like is hard to predict and somewhat depends on the election result. Allianse parties might demand a Social Democrat minority government where the "extreme" Greens and Left Party are kept away from government. The Social Democrats might not want to throw out any of the Allianse parties in particular, but would insist on very centrist budgets to allow such a government.

[Diouf]

2014 results, visualized by Henrik Lindberg

[Diouf]

Inizio polling.

Should your party be prepared to govern with support from Sweden Democrats?

72% Yes KD
64% Yes M
25% Yes L
08% Yes C

48% Yes All Allianse voters.

[Diouf]

SVT picture of the results of the election compass. The fat circles are the official response of the party to the compass. The small dots are that of individual candidates. The compass if of course with the classic left-right economic scale, and the vertical scale is globalization/multiculturalism at top and the opposite at the bottom.

[Diouf]

Wait, so candidates can diverge publicly from the party? In a parliamentary system?

This shows answers to an election compass, so some of it can be just the difference between agree and fully agree on a question. Once in parliament all MPs from a party generally vote the same way. But the picture shows how there is a relatively big range between MP/candidates from particularly Liberals and Center, who have some candidates who are very pro-migration and fairly close to the Greens.

[Diouf]

You would instinctively think list MPs a la Sweden would be less inclined to rebel than directly elected ones - no personal vote

Yeah, I mean in general one of the big advantages of PR is that you get more coherent parties and thereby a more transparent party choice for voters. So there should be much less need for rebels. The effect is probably the strongest with closed lists. The Swedish system is semi-closed in that MPs are elected according to their list rank, but candidates who win 5% or more of a party's votes will break the list and get elected. Still it can happen, particularly with parties who are new in government it seems. Miljöpartiet/Greens had 4 rebel MPs, who voted against government line a few times. In the end, I think they weren't really part of the Green group anymore.

[Diouf]

The last party leader debate is on SVT1 now, the main state channel. Viewers who turned on their television 5 min early were treated to this interesting story: Ali Khalil, a Stockholm councillor for the Green Party, offered 3.000 votes from his muslim community to the Moderates if they agreed to approve a building license for a new mosque. The Moderates rejected the offer. Guessing this kind of story could almost matter as much as the debate itself

[Diouf]

Everything was about Åkesson and Sweden Democrats in the debate. At several times, it became everybody against Åkesson, particularly on immigration. Even Busch Thor from the Christian Democrats, who is probably closest to SD, was eager to say that SD had the wrong rhetoric or policy even when she herself made basically the same points. Åkesson's toughest duels were with Sjöstedt from Left Party, and particularly Löof from the Centre Party. Lööf and Åkesson had several intense duels, and at one point Åkesson even told Lööf to tone down her anger. Probably good for both parties in terms of votes to gain attention for their clear points of view, but does make it very difficult to see a government that is dependent on both parties. The Liberals again rejected dealing with SD, and talked up the idea of a cross-block agreement (that they aren't necessarily a part of themselves).

PM Stefan Löfven was quite muted and didn't play that big of a role. He was quite clear on his repeated points, particularly against the Allianse's proposed tax cuts, but was also severely hounded on his record on migration and crime from both Åkessson and Kristersson.

One should always be careful in guessing which way the opinion polls can be wrong. But with SD's role as the only proper opposition party during the term (which Åkesson reminded people tonight), an election campaign with immigration as a big subject after an extremely huge immigration inflow , and a final debate which centered around SD, I would be quite amazed if SD only managed to progress from 13 to 17%. I am fully aware that even if many voters agree with their viewpoints, it takes time for voters to give up previous party loyalties and go to the SD. But if SD only go from 13 to 17%, as Sifo, Demoskop, SKOP, Ipsos and Inizio polls suggest, then that really is a missed opportunity of huge dimensions. In these circumstances, without polls, I would have guessed something more like a doubling from 13% to 26%.

[Diouf]

After the debate, the post-debate host at SVT, Martina Nord said that Jimmie Åkesson had been "blatantly stereotyping" in his remarks on immigration, and that SVT, the state broadcaster, dissociates itself from those remarks. This is completely crazy. That a state broadcaster actively attacks one party straight after the most important debate of the campaign. Crazy. Atleast SD doesn't need to worry about a campaign point and attention for the last hours of the campaign.

[Diouf]

Front page of newspapers today:
The left one: "Åkesson's rage against SVT after the debate:'A Scandal'. Dissociated themselves from the SD-leader in direct coverage."
The right one: "Anger towards SVT's statement against Åkesson. Program leader dissociated themselves from them in program after debate on immigration. SD demands apology.
 

[Diouf]

Even though Jan Björklund is much less angry than Annie Lööf, then the words coming from his mouth are as negative towards SD as those from her. Björklund does emphasize the point about responsibility in terms of securing a stable new government, but I would still tend to put L and C in the same bucket and expect them to act in the same way. Also based on a strategic view, where they seem to appeal to many of the same voters despite the party histories being quite different.

If the Allianse parties get more seats than the Red-Greens parties, I think there is a good chance that an Allianse government with all four parties will be formed. In the party leader debate yesterday, this question was asked. The four Allianse parties AND the Left Party agreed that this should happen in such a scenario. Sjöstedt was quite clear that the "winning block" should form the government, so this suggests they might even lay their votes down. Löfven and Lövin did not agree to the same, but this mostly seemed to be bitterness about how the Allianse parties acted during the last four years. In the end, I think they could very well lay down their votes as well. SD said their vote in this scenario would come down to policy, but if all Red-Greens lay down their votes, then it doesn't matter.
If the Red-Green parties get more seats than the Allianse parties then the fun really begins. All Allianse parties, particularly M and KD, should be wary of just allowing Red-Greens to govern on for four more years without a majority. However, the political correctness in Sweden's political elite is so strong that I wouldn't rule out this happening in the end, particularly if the Red-Greens keep their cool and reject all centre-right governments in this scenario. There might be some tweaks and conditions, like keeping the Greens out of government or a demand that budgets should be made with the Allianse, but I can see it happen. And ultimatively the Allianse parties might all prefer this to some cross-bloc government, because they can easier keep their hands clean and it looks less like some very weird government just to keep SD out of influence. Also the Allianse parties can then postpone breaking up the Allianse, which they all seem quite attached to after the two terms governing together. If the Red-Green parties keep their cool and promises to vote down any centre-right government, then the only chance of such a government being formed is that the Allianse parties and SD makes an agreement. There is probably little possibility for an overlap where a government both includes C and L AND is palatable to SD. So it would likely be a M-KD government, perhaps a M government. Such a government should then find some middle way, particularly on immigration, that keeps both C+L and SD from voting them down. This should be quite hard with both SD and C making significant gains due to their clear and opposite views, but maybe it can be fudged. M-KD might hope that Social Democrats could offer to lay down their votes if they present a centrist economic programme and "mainstream toughish" on immigration, but again S should probably keep their cool and reject all centre-right governments in this scenario.

[Diouf]

After the debate, the post-debate host at SVT, Martina Nord said that Jimmie Åkesson had been "blatantly stereotyping" in his remarks on immigration, and that SVT, the state broadcaster, dissociates itself from those remarks. This is completely crazy. That a state broadcaster actively attacks one party straight after the most important debate of the campaign. Crazy. Atleast SD doesn't need to worry about a campaign point and attention for the last hours of the campaign.

Here's more about the last-minute Jimmie Åkesson / SVT spat and what it's all about:

During the final debate, Åkesson said the following: "Why do immigrants in Sweden have such a high unemployment rate ? Because they are not Swedish, they do not belong here. And because of that, nobody hires them."

... which caused the SVT TV channel to disassociate themselves (!) from his comments.

Not sure why a TV channel would have to disassociate from free speech or a debate comment by a major party leader. The comment wasn't even racist or particularly extremist. More like the plain truth. In fact, Sweden has one of the widest gaps among Western countries between the native Swedish unemployment rate (some 3-4%) and that of immigrants (some 15-20%). The overall unemployment rate is some 7% right now.

There is a 1-minute video clip here at the top, that shows the incident. It can be seen in Denmark, so probably also in the rest of the World. https://www.svt.se/nyheter/svt-tar-avstand-till-akessons-kommentar-sd-starkt-kritiska

Precise description and translation:

We are on SVT1, around 10 minutes after the end of the debate. There have been a quick flash interview with all party leaders right after the debate, and now the host and two guests start to debate the debate, so they roll a clip, which is where the video starts.

Jimmie Åkesson: "If only the immigrants get jobs, then everything will solve itself". That is what all the others (pointing at other party leaders) have always said. But that still isn't happening. Therefore one must ask why it is so hard for these people to get a job. That is because these people are not Swedish. They don't fit into Sweden. It is obvious that it is then hard to get a job.

Annie Lööf interrupting: How can you talk in this way!?!?!

Jimmie Åkesson: It is obvious that it is then hard to get a job. You have to actually do what is required to become Swedish.

Clip ends, and we are back with the host and two guests.

Host says: We should start out by saying that Jimmie Åkesson's comments here were severely generalizing. SVT distances itself from this. (Turns towards one of the guests) Why does he express himself this way, Love (his actual name)?

Guest: The party has a very clear line, and normally expresses itself in this way, although they perhaps do not go this far always. They are very clear on their policies in this area, and they probably feel a need to go further. We can see that on migration policy, where they are now even against UN quota refugees. The party feels a need to go further since other parties have moved closer to and even taken over some of SD's policy positions.

[Diouf]

M 68%
SD 63%
S 62%
L 61%
KD 61%
C 61%
MP 49%
FI 34%
V 32%

[Diouf]

SVT is dumping Eva Landahl, the editor who told the SVT host to make the comment about SD, for the election night coverage tomorrow. Newspaper Expressen revealed that she had liked Twitter comments that were critical of Sweden Democrats, including one very critical op-ed with the headline "Sweden Democrats is a completely unneccesary party". In the statement, it also says that "After discussions, we agree that it would have been better for viewers if we had handled Åkesson's comments in another way".

[Diouf]

Apparently Swedish police does not keep stats on ethnicity and crime, so the claim of Tender Branson has a certain fake news flavour.

https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why-sweden-doesnt-keep-stats-on-ethnic-background-and-crime

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Please, please, please...

Yes, it is unfortunate that Swedish government try to cover over this problem by not making statistics on this very important area.
Luckily a few journalists have actually bothered to do this work in some areas.

For example the below research that shows, that of all sentenced for rape in Sweden between 2012 - 2017, 58% were born abroad. Quite a significant overrepresentation.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/granskning/ug/ny-kartlaggning-av-valdtaktsdomar-58-procent-av-de-domda-fodda-utomlands

[Diouf]

SVT1 will make an exit poll at 20.00, when polls close. They have already revealed two findings. 38% did not decide on their vote until the last week, a record high. 41% of voters changed party between 2014 and 2018.

Tv4 will publish an exit poll at 19.45

[Diouf]

Tv4 will publish an exit poll at 19.45

Isn't that illegal ?

No, it's just edgy and wanting to be first. SVT's exit poll must be done as well since they are publishing nuggets of information, so it's just about them wanting a small lead. Hardly gonna affect anyone.

[Diouf]

A picture that is probably similar in much of Europe. Share of voters changing parties between elections rising and rising.

[Diouf]

Share of a party's voters saying the party leader was important for their choice.