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

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

Still without majority?

[Diouf]

Löfven as expected voted down as PM candidate. Only 116 MPs voted for him (S+MP), 28 didn't vote (V) and 200 voted against (M, SD, C, KD, L). V didn't vote because they didn't feel like they had received assurances of enough influence. However, in the PM vote a blank vote is de facto a yes vote, so the difference does not matter a whole lot.

The Speaker said afterwards that he will talk to party leaders today and over the weekend, and then report on his next steps in the beginning of next week. He also stated that "The parties are driving Sweden closer to a new election. I regret that development and will do what I can to prevent it, but if the parties choose a new election instead of acting in a way that could provide a government, I will not block their way. Therefore I will now start early preparations for a new election". These preperations are apparently a first meeting with the election authorities, who organizes elections.

[Gustaf]

I still Think new elections are pretty unlikely. Too much to lose for too many parties. I kind of thought Löfven would get it but now that he didn't probability of M+KD seems very high.

[Diouf]

I don't think Lööf made us much wiser today. I would probably still tend to see a S-C-V-L-MP majority as the most likely solution over M-KD. Basically, it is for Lööf to decide. And while she has hitherto rejected M-KD out of principle (never rely on SD), the centre-left majority was "only" ruled out due to policy differences, although quite significant ones. Policy differences should be easier to bridge than clearly stated principles is what I'm thinking. It seemed like (parts of) L was at least ready to make the move.
I'm not sure how Lööf prioritises new elections vs. centre-left government now. New elections give a possibility (although polls suggest chances not that big) of an Allianse government which is much easier, but perhaps it also allows her the chance to be a bit more honest/straightforward in the campaign that she could end up supporting a centre-left government. But still, an election would also largely be blamed on her, and M & KD might not play too nice against her this time? And if the likely end result is a centre-left government, then why not take that now instead of going through such a campaign. And she might be able to get slightly more concessions now than if the Red-Green bloc lead is larger at the next election.

[Gustaf]

The policy gap can't be bridged. One or both parties would have to sell out completely.

Lööf wouldn't have to violate any stated principle at all actually. All she'd have to do is to not vote against a government led by her PM candidate and that does not cooperate with SD. That seems like an easier pill to swallow, IMO.

[Lord Halifax]

The policy gap can't be bridged. One or both parties would have to sell out completely.

Lööf wouldn't have to violate any stated principle at all actually. All she'd have to do is to not vote against a government led by her PM candidate and that does not cooperate with SD. That seems like an easier pill to swallow, IMO.

It seems Sweden lacks genuinely centrist parties. The so-called Centre Party is more right wing than your Conservatives on labour market issues and many economic issues, the Liberals are also right wing on labour market and taxes, the Christian Democrats have moved from being centrist to more Conservative than the Conservatives, and your Greens seem very watermelon-ish. So there aren't really any parties in between the Social Democrats and the Conservatives. Is that correct?

[Tintrlvr]

The policy gap can't be bridged. One or both parties would have to sell out completely.

Lööf wouldn't have to violate any stated principle at all actually. All she'd have to do is to not vote against a government led by her PM candidate and that does not cooperate with SD. That seems like an easier pill to swallow, IMO.

It seems Sweden lacks genuinely centrist parties. The so-called Centre Party is more right wing than your Conservatives on labour market issues and many economic issues, the Liberals are also right wing on labour market and taxes, the Christian Democrats have moved from being centrist to more Conservative than the Conservatives, and your Greens seem very watermelon-ish. So there aren't really any parties in between the Social Democrats and the Conservatives. Is that correct?

If you're talking strictly economics, I think MP, KD and SD are all somewhere between S and M (MP closer to S, KD and SD more nebulous). But they are obviously each far from the center on other, non-economic issues, and those non-economic issues are their flagship issues, so there's no generally centrist party that can work with both the right and left blocs. C used to be that party but has become libertarian-light in recent years (although its voter base is probably still the most classically "centrist" and wouldn't punish the party for supporting the left).

[Helsinkian]

If this were Finland, the parties would have sold out their election promises weeks ago in exchange for ministerial portfolios. I have to give credit to the Swedish parties on consistency.

[Lord Halifax]

The policy gap can't be bridged. One or both parties would have to sell out completely.

Lööf wouldn't have to violate any stated principle at all actually. All she'd have to do is to not vote against a government led by her PM candidate and that does not cooperate with SD. That seems like an easier pill to swallow, IMO.

It seems Sweden lacks genuinely centrist parties. The so-called Centre Party is more right wing than your Conservatives on labour market issues and many economic issues, the Liberals are also right wing on labour market and taxes, the Christian Democrats have moved from being centrist to more Conservative than the Conservatives, and your Greens seem very watermelon-ish. So there aren't really any parties in between the Social Democrats and the Conservatives. Is that correct?

If you're talking strictly economics, I think MP, KD and SD are all somewhere between S and M (MP closer to S, KD and SD more nebulous). But they are obviously each far from the center on other, non-economic issues, and those non-economic issues are their flagship issues, so there's no generally centrist party that can work with both the right and left blocs. C used to be that party but has become libertarian-light in recent years (although its voter base is probably still the most classically "centrist" and wouldn't punish the party for supporting the left).

It was a question for the Swedish posters. I am well aware of the differences on social issues. 

[Gustaf]

The policy gap can't be bridged. One or both parties would have to sell out completely.

Lööf wouldn't have to violate any stated principle at all actually. All she'd have to do is to not vote against a government led by her PM candidate and that does not cooperate with SD. That seems like an easier pill to swallow, IMO.

It seems Sweden lacks genuinely centrist parties. The so-called Centre Party is more right wing than your Conservatives on labour market issues and many economic issues, the Liberals are also right wing on labour market and taxes, the Christian Democrats have moved from being centrist to more Conservative than the Conservatives, and your Greens seem very watermelon-ish. So there aren't really any parties in between the Social Democrats and the Conservatives. Is that correct?

If you're talking strictly economics, I think MP, KD and SD are all somewhere between S and M (MP closer to S, KD and SD more nebulous). But they are obviously each far from the center on other, non-economic issues, and those non-economic issues are their flagship issues, so there's no generally centrist party that can work with both the right and left blocs. C used to be that party but has become libertarian-light in recent years (although its voter base is probably still the most classically "centrist" and wouldn't punish the party for supporting the left).

It was a question for the Swedish posters. I am well aware of the differences on social issues. 

It depends a bit on what issue you look at, but yeah, the Centre party mixes different radical positions these Days and M and S are plausibly the two most centrist parties in terms of their platforms. I'd say the Liberals are fairly centrist as well. 

[DL]

Of course it goes without saying that even the most rightwing member of the Moderate Party would be a Bernie Sanders Democrat if he or she lived in the US!!

[bigic]

I hope you mean that ironically.

[Omega21]

Is any Swedish party (other than SD) against illegal immigration and for deportation of non-integrated migrants?

[The Lord Marbury]

The policy gap can't be bridged. One or both parties would have to sell out completely.

Lööf wouldn't have to violate any stated principle at all actually. All she'd have to do is to not vote against a government led by her PM candidate and that does not cooperate with SD. That seems like an easier pill to swallow, IMO.

But what would such a government look like and which parties would it get a majority with other than SD? I guess that a Kristersson government could say that it's not negotiating with SD and just adapt its budgets and legislation to such a degree that SD would be willing to vote for them, but that's just going to be plainly obvious after a while. And eventually SD are going to flex their muscles to show their power to their supporters by threating to vote for the Social Democratic budget unless they get concessions from Kristersson, so I don't think it'd be sustainable in the long run.

However Lööf always said that she'd never be part of a government dependent on SD during the election and said nothing about tolerating such a government, so I guess that's a loophole. However then you get to her refusal to support Kristersson in the Riksdag a few weeks back and the arguments she put forth then, which would be pretty difficult to backtrack from. How can you say no to a government with the argument that it would be dependent on the far-right one day and then say yes to it the next?

And then there's the issue of how the Centre Party's voters would feel about all this. Given that they framed this election as one about values and made SD their main opponents, would their voters buy C abstaining in a vote for a government that would be dependent on SD in every budget vote? It's quite possible that those voters would be infuriated with any move which gives SD more influence and would subsequently ditch the Centre Party, in spite of Lööf giving herself a loophole in her rhetoric during the election. It's a pure guess, but I think that some of their voters are much less right-wing than their membership and leadership and place a higher priority on keeping SD out of power rather than gutting the Employment Protection Act or implementing major tax cuts. I'm sure that the Centre Party is using it's big coffers to poll these issues, but I don't think there's a simple answer out there that won't result in accusations of betrayal from any flank of the party.

[Gustaf]

The policy gap can't be bridged. One or both parties would have to sell out completely.

Lööf wouldn't have to violate any stated principle at all actually. All she'd have to do is to not vote against a government led by her PM candidate and that does not cooperate with SD. That seems like an easier pill to swallow, IMO.

But what would such a government look like and which parties would it get a majority with other than SD? I guess that a Kristersson government could say that it's not negotiating with SD and just adapt its budgets and legislation to such a degree that SD would be willing to vote for them, but that's just going to be plainly obvious after a while. And eventually SD are going to flex their muscles to show their power to their supporters by threating to vote for the Social Democratic budget unless they get concessions from Kristersson, so I don't think it'd be sustainable in the long run.

However Lööf always said that she'd never be part of a government dependent on SD during the election and said nothing about tolerating such a government, so I guess that's a loophole. However then you get to her refusal to support Kristersson in the Riksdag a few weeks back and the arguments she put forth then, which would be pretty difficult to backtrack from. How can you say no to a government with the argument that it would be dependent on the far-right one day and then say yes to it the next?

And then there's the issue of how the Centre Party's voters would feel about all this. Given that they framed this election as one about values and made SD their main opponents, would their voters buy C abstaining in a vote for a government that would be dependent on SD in every budget vote? It's quite possible that those voters would be infuriated with any move which gives SD more influence and would subsequently ditch the Centre Party, in spite of Lööf giving herself a loophole in her rhetoric during the election. It's a pure guess, but I think that some of their voters are much less right-wing than their membership and leadership and place a higher priority on keeping SD out of power rather than gutting the Employment Protection Act or implementing major tax cuts. I'm sure that the Centre Party is using it's big coffers to poll these issues, but I don't think there's a simple answer out there that won't result in accusations of betrayal from any flank of the party.

Obviously no outcome is great for them - that's why it's taking so long. But I Think just tolerating a government is easier to get away with than having to actively support one (like they would have to do with S).

If SD starts demanding unpalatable things and M gives in, C can topple the government then but it seems unnecessary to do so in advance. And if SD starts demanding unpalatable things and M does not give in, they can let S topple the government together with SD (as they claim they never will but of course would) and let them sort the mess and bear the political fallout.

I'm not saying any of that is fantastic but I suspect it's better than Selling themselves to S.

[Gustaf]

Is any Swedish party (other than SD) against illegal immigration and for deportation of non-integrated migrants?

I can't tell if you're serious. Most of them are against illegal immigration, lol. I'm not sure what you mean by deporting non-integrated migrants. I don't Think even SD wants to evaluate peoples' "integration" level and then deport them based on that. That sounds a bit insane.

[Omega21]

Is any Swedish party (other than SD) against illegal immigration and for deportation of non-integrated migrants?

I can't tell if you're serious. Most of them are against illegal immigration, lol. I'm not sure what you mean by deporting non-integrated migrants. I don't Think even SD wants to evaluate peoples' "integration" level and then deport them based on that. That sounds a bit insane.

How come? Sweden accepted the most migrants/capita of any EU country, and all of these people came illegally...

[DL]

Can someone explain why its so difficult for there to be a coalition in Sweden that brings together the centre left and centre right when these arrangements seem very routine in Finland and Norway? In Norway the Centre Party routinely forms coalitions with the Social Democrats and in Finaldn it is veryu common for there to be governments that bring together the Social Democrats and the Centre party and the NCC (whihc is the Finnish equivalent of the Moderates).   

[Gustaf]

Is any Swedish party (other than SD) against illegal immigration and for deportation of non-integrated migrants?

I can't tell if you're serious. Most of them are against illegal immigration, lol. I'm not sure what you mean by deporting non-integrated migrants. I don't Think even SD wants to evaluate peoples' "integration" level and then deport them based on that. That sounds a bit insane.

How come? Sweden accepted the most migrants/capita of any EU country, and all of these people came illegally...

Apart from the fact that most parties support the changed immigration policy those people didn't come illegally by any Swedish definition. They came to seek asylum.

[Gustaf]

Can someone explain why its so difficult for there to be a coalition in Sweden that brings together the centre left and centre right when these arrangements seem very routine in Finland and Norway? In Norway the Centre Party routinely forms coalitions with the Social Democrats and in Finaldn it is veryu common for there to be governments that bring together the Social Democrats and the Centre party and the NCC (whihc is the Finnish equivalent of the Moderates).   

In these countries the far-right is also accepted in government, of course. In Finland politics is significantly less ideological than in Sweden. The Norwegian Centre party is a very different party than the Swedish one and is aligned with the left bloc these Days.

[Ethelberth]

Originally, the SDP-Centre goverments (so called red clay governments) were modeled after Sweden (in thirties). NCP-SDP co-operation (brothers in arms co-operation) was common in big cities after war (against communists), whereas Centre and Commies used to co-operate on universal social policy issues.

[Kosmos]

Traditionally, the Centre Party and Liberals (Folkpartiet) used to be in the middle while the Moderates where both economically and socially right wing. But that started changing as Reinfeldt moved the Moderate Party towards the middle and the Centre party became a more clear-cut liberal party. I would say the Centre party has undergone quite a transformation, going from being supported mainly by rural working class men to now having gained votes from a large number of middle class urban women.

Anyway, now that we have an M-KD budget, it seems logical that we also get an M-KD government. Maybe it will be unstable and not work out; we would find out down the line. With Kristersson having to keep both Lööf and Åkesson happy enough not to bring him down, it would be a fragile government that has to do a delicate balancing act. But given that S and C seemingly are too far apart to work together, there doesn't seem to be any better option.

[Diouf]

[Diouf]

The Speaker has presented his timetable for the next steps in the process. He has given the party leaders more time to think things through during Christmas, but he says that there is a special responsibility on the two PM candidates, Löfven and Kristersson, who will have to report to him once a week (28 December, 4 January and 10 January). Then on 14 January, the Speaker will meet all party leaders. Immediately after those meetings, he will present his next PM candidate to parliament, who will then be voted on 16 January. If this vote fails, he will present his 4th and final candidate on 21 January, who will be voted on 23 January. New elections would therefore happen at 21 April at latest.

[Diouf]

In the recent Ipsos poll, KD (8%) is bigger than C (7%) while both MP and L is right at the threshold. S+V+MP clearly bigger than the Allianse (44-37). C's migration spokesperson, Johanna Jönsson, has said that "I personally would prefer to find a solution with Löfven rather than with Kristersson in this situation. It's very difficult for me to imagine letting forward an ever more conservative M in a situation where they are constantly pressed to go further right by its voters, own politicians and other parties."