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

[Diouf]

Is there any polling on what Swedish voters will do in the events of a snap election.

A recent Sifo poll. Not much change.

[Helsinkian]

Most recent attempt at government (M + KD, with outside SD support) was voted down as well.

[Sestak]

So, new elections are likely?

[Oryxslayer]

Most recent attempt at government (M + KD, with outside SD support) was voted down as well.

Well that was always going to fail. Onto the next potential govt.

[Diouf]

With an Allianse government finally completely out of the picture, we are a bit closer to the crunch, which will be whether there can be agreement in the S-C-V-L-MP majority. However, C and L still sounds like they are trying to drag this out as far as possible. Both Lööf and Björklund still make comments like "Kristersson remains our PM candidate" and touts the possibility of an Allianse+MP government, which remains very unlikely. If the two parties insist on keeping that posssibility alive (and the Grand coalition oft touted by L), the Speaker might have to forcefully get those eliminated as well, either with a PM vote or a very specific informateur job looking at those possibilities. Hopefully, this won't be necessary, so that we can go straight to the S-C-V-L-MP majority and see whether there can be agreement on PM, government composition and policies. If that fails, then it seems hard to avoid new elections.

[Diouf]

Annie Löof has been appointed informateur. She states she would have negotiations with "the six parties between V and SD". For me, this doesn't sound that promising in terms of creating a government. It is quite difficult to form a government without at least passive support from V or SD. It could sound like she will focus on the almost impossible solutions like Allianse+MP or Grand Coalition instead of the perhaps possible majority in S-C-V-L-MP.

However, she also said the talks would focus on "the issues", not who should be PM or who should be in government. So it could perhaps be helpful in getting some broad policy agreements between S, C, L and MP in some form. Then some or all of these parties could perhaps form a government later, where they would have to convince V to at least lay down their votes. With the statements from Lööf about V being an extreme party like SD, it doesn't really seems like Lööf is trying hard to be PM, since it would be weird if V accepted her as PM after such comments. Of course V prefers a Löfven premiership, so they might have flatly rejected Lööf as PM anyway, but this seems like ruling it out completely.

[Omega21]

I really know little about Swedish politics, but why is the Alliance so opposed to working with the SD?

They're supposed to be centre-right, but I guess "centre-right" really means "barely centre" when compared to countries like Austria?

I would appreciate any comments!

[ag]

I really know little about Swedish politics, but why is the Alliance so opposed to working with the SD?

They're supposed to be centre-right, but I guess "centre-right" really means "barely centre" when compared to countries like Austria?

I would appreciate any comments!

Because politics has more than one dimension, you know.

[The Lord Marbury]

I really know little about Swedish politics, but why is the Alliance so opposed to working with the SD?

They're supposed to be centre-right, but I guess "centre-right" really means "barely centre" when compared to countries like Austria?

I would appreciate any comments!

Well first, keep in mind that the Alliance is made up of two liberal parties (Centre Party & the Liberals), one liberal conservative party (the Moderates) and one Christian Democratic Party. So it's all very complicated and there's no easy way to explain it all, but in the end it boils down to basic ideological differences.

For the past eight years they've all been opposed to working with SD mainly due to their roots in the Swedish neo-nazi movement. Not to mention their continuing problems with national and local representatives openly spouting out racism, sexism, anti-semitism and sometimes even openly showing support for neo-nazi organizations like the Nordic Resistance Movement (NMR). SD's first strong candidate to become the Mayor of a municipality comparing homosexuals to pedophiles or Mattias Karlsson, the parliamentary leader of the Sweden Democrats, saying it's now a case of "victory or death" after the past election election certainly doesn't help to clean up their image.

However since 2014 the Christian Democrats have moved further to the right and parts of the Moderates have also grown increasingly positive towards at least negotiating with SD on certain issues in parliament. Not an organised supply and confidence deal mind you, because that would still be difficult considering the significant liberal wing among Moderate members and voters which they'd fear move towards the Centre Party if they were to go in that direction. They got some evidence of that during 2017 when they made a small opening towards working with SD and subsequently dropped like a stone in opinion polls, with the Centre Party as the main beneficiary.

The Centre Party, whilst very much to the right when it comes to taxation and the labour market, perhaps the most right-wing of any party in Parliament on those issues, remains firmly opposed to SD because of the vast ideological differences, just like the Liberals. They see SD, with their praise of the politics of Victor Orban, Donald Trump and inability to choose between a dictator like Putin and a democratically elected leader like Macron as dangerous. Working with them would in their eyes in the long run lead to the slow deterioration of the liberal democracy they've both worked to develop and protect. That's why they have such difficulty with being entirely dependent on SD for major votes in parliament, let alone be in government with them. The Liberals are also by far the most pro-EU party in parliament, so in that regard they are complete polar opposites with SD who want to leave the EU.

Also, it's important to remember that the Swedish public are far more socially liberal than some other countries in Europe when it comes to social issues. Gay marriage was approved by every single party in the Alliance except the Christian Democrats back in 2009 while they were in government and former Moderate PM Fredrik Reinfeldt was even one of two Moderate MPs to vote in favour of civil unions when he was a backbencher during the 90s. So the main conflict between left and right in Sweden have historically mainly been about economics and the size of the welfare state, not social issues.

While the Christian Democrats have held (and still do!) socially conservative positions on issues like LGBTQ rights or abortion they don't advertise them, because it's seen as a losing issue in elections. Some SD representatives even mentioned the Social Democrats's attacks on SD's position on reducing the number of weeks of abortion on demand from 18 to 12 as one of the reasons why they lost support in the final weeks of this year's campaign. And supporters of C and L are pretty much the most socially liberal bunch in the Alliance, which increases their distance to SD.

[Omega21]

I really know little about Swedish politics, but why is the Alliance so opposed to working with the SD?

They're supposed to be centre-right, but I guess "centre-right" really means "barely centre" when compared to countries like Austria?

I would appreciate any comments!

Well first, keep in mind that the Alliance is made up of two liberal parties (Centre Party & the Liberals), one liberal conservative party (the Moderates) and one Christian Democratic Party. So it's all very complicated and there's no easy way to explain it all, but in the end it boils down to basic ideological differences.

For the past eight years they've all been opposed to working with SD mainly due to their roots in the Swedish neo-nazi movement. Not to mention their continuing problems with national and local representatives openly spouting out racism, sexism, anti-semitism and sometimes even openly showing support for neo-nazi organizations like the Nordic Resistance Movement (NMR). SD's first strong candidate to become the Mayor of a municipality comparing homosexuals to pedophiles or Mattias Karlsson, the parliamentary leader of the Sweden Democrats, saying it's now a case of "victory or death" after the past election election certainly doesn't help to clean up their image.

However since 2014 the Christian Democrats have moved further to the right and parts of the Moderates have also grown increasingly positive towards at least negotiating with SD on certain issues in parliament. Not an organised supply and confidence deal mind you, because that would still be difficult considering the significant liberal wing among Moderate members and voters which they'd fear move towards the Centre Party if they were to go in that direction. They got some evidence of that during 2017 when they made a small opening towards working with SD and subsequently dropped like a stone in opinion polls, with the Centre Party as the main beneficiary.

The Centre Party, whilst very much to the right when it comes to taxation and the labour market, perhaps the most right-wing of any party in Parliament on those issues, remains firmly opposed to SD because of the vast ideological differences, just like the Liberals. They see SD, with their praise of the politics of Victor Orban, Donald Trump and inability to choose between a dictator like Putin and a democratically elected leader like Macron as dangerous. Working with them would in their eyes in the long run lead to the slow deterioration of the liberal democracy they've both worked to develop and protect. That's why they have such difficulty with being entirely dependent on SD for major votes in parliament, let alone be in government with them. The Liberals are also by far the most pro-EU party in parliament, so in that regard they are complete polar opposites with SD who want to leave the EU.

Also, it's important to remember that the Swedish public are far more socially liberal than some other countries in Europe when it comes to social issues. Gay marriage was approved by every single party in the Alliance except the Christian Democrats back in 2009 while they were in government and former Moderate PM Fredrik Reinfeldt was even one of two Moderate MPs to vote in favour of civil unions when he was a backbencher during the 90s. So the main conflict between left and right in Sweden have historically mainly been about economics and the size of the welfare state, not social issues.

While the Christian Democrats have held (and still do!) socially conservative positions on issues like LGBTQ rights or abortion they don't advertise them, because it's seen as a losing issue in elections. Some SD representatives even mentioned the Social Democrats's attacks on SD's position on reducing the number of weeks of abortion on demand from 18 to 12 as one of the reasons why they lost support in the final weeks of this year's campaign. And supporters of C and L are pretty much the most socially liberal bunch in the Alliance, which increases their distance to SD.

Wow, thank you for answering my question so well!

I assumed they had some scandals, but I didn't know to which extent. I'm not that surprised considering that they are the only "pure right wing"(not Center-right), so the loonies need to find someone to vote for (someone more mainstream). I don't know enough about Sweden, but I would probably vote SD simply for tighter controls on mass immigration, but then again I'm not sure what their exact policies are. Will be following the thread, hopefully, Sweden works some kind of government out soon.

Thanks again, I appreciate it!

[Gustaf]

I really know little about Swedish politics, but why is the Alliance so opposed to working with the SD?

They're supposed to be centre-right, but I guess "centre-right" really means "barely centre" when compared to countries like Austria?

I would appreciate any comments!

Well first, keep in mind that the Alliance is made up of two liberal parties (Centre Party & the Liberals), one liberal conservative party (the Moderates) and one Christian Democratic Party. So it's all very complicated and there's no easy way to explain it all, but in the end it boils down to basic ideological differences.

For the past eight years they've all been opposed to working with SD mainly due to their roots in the Swedish neo-nazi movement. Not to mention their continuing problems with national and local representatives openly spouting out racism, sexism, anti-semitism and sometimes even openly showing support for neo-nazi organizations like the Nordic Resistance Movement (NMR). SD's first strong candidate to become the Mayor of a municipality comparing homosexuals to pedophiles or Mattias Karlsson, the parliamentary leader of the Sweden Democrats, saying it's now a case of "victory or death" after the past election election certainly doesn't help to clean up their image.

However since 2014 the Christian Democrats have moved further to the right and parts of the Moderates have also grown increasingly positive towards at least negotiating with SD on certain issues in parliament. Not an organised supply and confidence deal mind you, because that would still be difficult considering the significant liberal wing among Moderate members and voters which they'd fear move towards the Centre Party if they were to go in that direction. They got some evidence of that during 2017 when they made a small opening towards working with SD and subsequently dropped like a stone in opinion polls, with the Centre Party as the main beneficiary.

The Centre Party, whilst very much to the right when it comes to taxation and the labour market, perhaps the most right-wing of any party in Parliament on those issues, remains firmly opposed to SD because of the vast ideological differences, just like the Liberals. They see SD, with their praise of the politics of Victor Orban, Donald Trump and inability to choose between a dictator like Putin and a democratically elected leader like Macron as dangerous. Working with them would in their eyes in the long run lead to the slow deterioration of the liberal democracy they've both worked to develop and protect. That's why they have such difficulty with being entirely dependent on SD for major votes in parliament, let alone be in government with them. The Liberals are also by far the most pro-EU party in parliament, so in that regard they are complete polar opposites with SD who want to leave the EU.

Also, it's important to remember that the Swedish public are far more socially liberal than some other countries in Europe when it comes to social issues. Gay marriage was approved by every single party in the Alliance except the Christian Democrats back in 2009 while they were in government and former Moderate PM Fredrik Reinfeldt was even one of two Moderate MPs to vote in favour of civil unions when he was a backbencher during the 90s. So the main conflict between left and right in Sweden have historically mainly been about economics and the size of the welfare state, not social issues.

While the Christian Democrats have held (and still do!) socially conservative positions on issues like LGBTQ rights or abortion they don't advertise them, because it's seen as a losing issue in elections. Some SD representatives even mentioned the Social Democrats's attacks on SD's position on reducing the number of weeks of abortion on demand from 18 to 12 as one of the reasons why they lost support in the final weeks of this year's campaign. And supporters of C and L are pretty much the most socially liberal bunch in the Alliance, which increases their distance to SD.

This is a good summary, but I'd also add that a lot of people on the right view SD with distrust on regular policy issues. Many libertarian-leaning people (who aren't a lot of voters but is a non-neglible faction of party members in M, C and L) view SD as basically Social Democrats with a bit of racist flavour. That isn't necessarily entirely accurate and S of course advances the opposite narrative but it's not clear that SD would be a reliable partner for the Alliance when it comes to cutting taxes, deregulating labour markets, advancing private alternatives in the welfare sector, etc.

[Diouf]

Liberals below the threshold in new Novus poll

[Former President tack50]

Come to think about it, what's the point of having both Liberals and Centre? They seem quite similar to me tbh

[The Lord Marbury]

Come to think about it, what's the point of having both Liberals and Centre? They seem quite similar to me tbh

There have actually been attempts at various points throughout the years to merge the parties, but they've all failed due to various reasons. There was one attempt in the early 70s which was supported by Centre Party leader Thorbjörn Fälldin, but he faced significant opposition internally, as did the Liberal (or People's Party) leader at the time. According to former L-leader Lars Leijonborg there were also preliminary talks after the 2002 elections, but it all fell through during the Euro-referendum when the two parties were on opposite sides.

There's also real differences in political cultures between the two parties; the Centre Party is traditionally an agrarian party which is understandably quite fond of subsidising agriculture and rural areas while the Liberals have generally been a party of city-dwelling academics. The Centre has also pretty much always had a far larger membership than the Liberals which would mean that they'd be dominant in any merger, which wouldn't be particularly appealing to the Liberals.

But who knows, if the Alliance falls apart completely those two parties could be looking seriously at a merger at some point as a way to strengthen liberalism in parliament. Also, the Centre Party technically owns the trademark of the Alliance (for tote bags and the like), so in that there's already a possible name for a united C-L party.

[Diouf]

The internal discussions in the Liberals seem to be intensifying. Expressen quotes one knowledgeable source in the party for saying that there is now a majority in the parliamentary group for allowing Kristersson to be PM, even if it means relying on SD votes. 9 leading L politicians from Skåne has written an open letter which encourages Björklund to state clearly that the party will not cooperate in government with S nor allow a S-led government to govern.

Sources claim that Björklund wants to secure his own future by joining a S-led government, which would give him a bigger chance of surviving (and several years as a minister). There are also continued speculations about Björklund being replaced as party leader.

[Gustaf]

Come to think about it, what's the point of having both Liberals and Centre? They seem quite similar to me tbh

There have actually been attempts at various points throughout the years to merge the parties, but they've all failed due to various reasons. There was one attempt in the early 70s which was supported by Centre Party leader Thorbjörn Fälldin, but he faced significant opposition internally, as did the Liberal (or People's Party) leader at the time. According to former L-leader Lars Leijonborg there were also preliminary talks after the 2002 elections, but it all fell through during the Euro-referendum when the two parties were on opposite sides.

There's also real differences in political cultures between the two parties; the Centre Party is traditionally an agrarian party which is understandably quite fond of subsidising agriculture and rural areas while the Liberals have generally been a party of city-dwelling academics. The Centre has also pretty much always had a far larger membership than the Liberals which would mean that they'd be dominant in any merger, which wouldn't be particularly appealing to the Liberals.

But who knows, if the Alliance falls apart completely those two parties could be looking seriously at a merger at some point as a way to strengthen liberalism in parliament. Also, the Centre Party technically owns the trademark of the Alliance (for tote bags and the like), so in that there's already a possible name for a united C-L party.

Wasn't the most serious attempt in the mid-90s when it actually came to a vote?

[The Lord Marbury]

Come to think about it, what's the point of having both Liberals and Centre? They seem quite similar to me tbh

There have actually been attempts at various points throughout the years to merge the parties, but they've all failed due to various reasons. There was one attempt in the early 70s which was supported by Centre Party leader Thorbjörn Fälldin, but he faced significant opposition internally, as did the Liberal (or People's Party) leader at the time. According to former L-leader Lars Leijonborg there were also preliminary talks after the 2002 elections, but it all fell through during the Euro-referendum when the two parties were on opposite sides.

There's also real differences in political cultures between the two parties; the Centre Party is traditionally an agrarian party which is understandably quite fond of subsidising agriculture and rural areas while the Liberals have generally been a party of city-dwelling academics. The Centre has also pretty much always had a far larger membership than the Liberals which would mean that they'd be dominant in any merger, which wouldn't be particularly appealing to the Liberals.

But who knows, if the Alliance falls apart completely those two parties could be looking seriously at a merger at some point as a way to strengthen liberalism in parliament. Also, the Centre Party technically owns the trademark of the Alliance (for tote bags and the like), so in that there's already a possible name for a united C-L party.

Wasn't the most serious attempt in the mid-90s when it actually came to a vote?

Not to my knowledge at least. The only real vote or debate I can think of would be one within the Centre Party during the early 70s, but that resulted in a merger being shot down by a significant margin. Wasn't the 90s just a period of generally poor relationships between the two parties, at least until Maud Olofsson and Lars Leijoborg entered the scene towards the tail end of the decade?

[Diouf]

Swedish magazine Fokus front page

Annie Lööf, October 2013: "I would rather eat up my right shoe than become the support wheel for S"

Lunch time?

Social Democrats are doing everything to make Annie Lööf hungry

[Diouf]

Expressen quotes sources for saying that Annie Lööfs talks have failed and she is unlikely to ask for more time when she meets the Speaker tomorrow. She has apparently had several meetings with Stefan Löfven, but little has come of them because Lööf has pursued the Allianse+MP solution. As one of the sources say:  "The Social Democrats have two goals. One is to govern, and the second is to break the bloc politics. To allow a new bloc of the Allianse + MP to govern means that neither goal is reached. That will never happen". We will find out tomorrow whether this is true, but it sounds like Lööf, as feared, has spent most of her time chasing the impossible solutions. Hopefully this at least means that that option can be crossed out, so the parties can get one step closer to looking at the S-C-V-L-MP majority, which might actually have a chance.

[Diouf]

Jonas Sjöstedt sounded very "open for business" in tonight's interview with "Bara Politik". He strongly wants Löfven as PM, and seems to hope for S minority with formalized budget cooperation with (at least) C to secure budget majorities.

When asked about his demands for allowing a potential S-C-L-Mp government, he said:"To allow a government, we must have influence. We represent more than 500.000 voters, who wants to see our policies carried through. At the same time, we have been very clear that we want this process to succeed. We want Stefan Löfven as PM. There are other models than the 4-party government. We are very open to discussing the issues and find a way forward."
Asked about C not wanting to speak with his party, :"You cannot say no to everything. Then there won't be any government, and new elections instead."
Asked about the parliamentary situation for V if it allows a four party government: "Well, there are other options. A S minority government for example. But if the four parties form a common government, then they can do without our support in the budget votes because we would never vote for a M budget. "
Asked about what's next if Annie Lööf as expected gives up tomorrow,:"The mandate should go back to Stefan Löfven. The Allianse parties have now tried all their options together without any success. Now is the time for real negotiations, which would require a fair bit of time. At least two weeks."
Asked about what S could do to convince C to cooperate? Give away PM title?: "We want Stefan Löven as PM. It would be very weird if the clear winner of the election would not be PM in such a scenario. I'm not at all sure C will even be in the government. It could be a formalized budget cooperation or something like that. But political compromises will be neccessary, and we are ready for them, despite our very clear left wing policies. And there are issues where we agree with C. We agree on the right of family unification for refugees. We agree on better conditions in small towns. We agree on securing personal assistance for citizens needing special care."

[Diouf]

Lööf's press conference was exactly what you could fear. She has apparently not looked at any of the possible solutions at all, and has only looked at the impossible ideas. She tries to blame S and M for not allowing each other to govern, but not a single person can have been surprised by this. She seems to explain her lack of beneficial work on the mandate of the Center Party. She says her mandate was to keep the Allianse together and make cross-bloc cooperation, and she hasn't left that course. So an internal signal to the rest of the party that they have to make a new mandate for her to entertain the possibility for allowing a Löfven led government? Now the Speaker has the ball again, and must figure out what to do

[DavidB.]

If Lööf and Löfven both fail, could the mandate return to Kristersson or is that option off the table now?

[Diouf]

If Lööf and Löfven both fail, could the mandate return to Kristersson or is that option off the table now?

I mean nothing is completely off the table. What we are waiting on is (still) for C + L to make up their minds. Do they want to support a Kristersson M/M-KD government despite it being dependent on SD (which they have already voted down in parliament once) or are they ready to negotiate with S, MP and V about a centre-left majority in whatever shape (probably with Löfven as PM)? Or do they want neither and thereby new elections. Björklund has talked a lot about the internal mandates and committees in his party (clearly under a lot of internal pressure) and today Lööf mentioned the party's mandate as well. So if the Speaker was very blunt, he would basically order C and L to go back to their internal party structure, and discuss the three options (Kristersson, Löfven, new elections) and find out what they want. He will perhaps not say that explicitly in the public, but his next move should be one that makes that happen. Björklund has not completely rejected the option of supporting a Kristersson government (but would require clear internal mandate etc.), but Lööf has been very dismissive and in the end C has the decisive seats. And while a majority in the L parliamentary group might support the Kristersson option, it sounds like C is more united in opposition to that solution so far.

[Diouf]

The Speaker will nominate Stefan Löfven for PM on December 3rd, and then the vote in parliament will be within 4 days. Hitherto, Löfven has been skeptical towards being put to another vote in parliament, but the Speaker said that Löfven had accepted to be put forward. Löfven's change of mind was primarily said to be based on the fact that the possible governments investigated by Lööf were now completely closed. In other words, it is Löfven or no one for Lööf now (unless she changes her mind on Kristersson), so she must start to engage seriously if she wants a government to be formed. So now C and L must make up their mind. The whisperers from L keep on saying that Björklund is eager to join a government, and that him and his allies are preparing the party to join a Löfven-government. The question is whether it will be accepted in the party's internal structures.

[Tender Branson]

Hmm ...

Maybe it's finally time to stop ignoring the Sweden Democrats and start coalition talks with them.

You cannot ignore a major party forever. Someone needs to tell that to the Swedish mainstream parties, so they "get it".

The other option is new elections, but this probably would result in the same situation again, just with the Sweden Democrats a few points stronger but the left/right blocks still with the same support each - just much lower.